yesIraq War Update

[MrTruth]

Do the policies of the Vietnam War also apply to the policies concerning Iraq and the Middle East?


"The cornerstone of U.S. policy was the Domino Theory. This argued that if South Vietnam fell to communist forces, then all of South East Asia would follow. Popularized by the Eisenhower administration, some argued that if communism spread unchecked, it would follow them home by first reaching Hawaii and follow to the West Coast of the United States. It was better, therefore, to fight communism in Asia, rather than on American soil. Thus, the Domino Theory provided a powerful motive for the American creation of a client state in southern Vietnam. The theory underpinned American policy in Vietnam for five presidencies."

In order to update this policy, just replace the following words:

South Vietnam - Iraq
South East Asia - Middle East
Eisenhower - Bush
Communism - Radical Muslim
Hawaii - Pick any state

More:

"Kennedy's policy towards South Vietnam rested on the assumption that Diem and his forces must ultimately defeat the guerrillas on their own. He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that "to introduce U.S. forces, in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences."

The quality of the South Vietnamese military, however, remained poor. Bad leadership, corruption and political interference all played a part in emasculating the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN). The frequency of guerrilla attacks rose, as the insurgency gathered steam. Hanoi's support for the NLF played a significant role. But South Vietnamese governmental incompetence was at the core of the crisis."

Why haven't we learned anything from Vietnam as we make the same mistakes in Iraq?

From the Vietnam War analysis, it was generally understood that 10 troops are needed to deal with 1 insurgent. Given this ratio, we would need an enormous number of American troops in Iraq - much more then our armed forces could ever provide.

"The U.S. military had long been schooled in offensive warfare. Regardless of political policies, U.S. commanders were institutionally and psychologically unsuited to a defensive mission."

During the 1968 presidential election, Richard M. Nixon promised "peace with honor". His plan was to build up the ARVN, so that they could take over the defense South Vietnam (the Nixon Doctrine). The policy became known as "Vietnamization", a term criticized by Robert K. Brigham for implying that, to that date, only Americans had been dying in the conflict. Vietnamization had much in common with the policies of the Kennedy administration. One important difference, however, remained. While Kennedy insisted that the South Vietnamese fight the war themselves, he attempted to limit the scope of the conflict. In pursuit of an exit strategy, Richard Nixon was prepared to employ a variety of tactics, including widening the war.

As Stanley Karnow noted, Americans "turned against the war long before America's political leaders did." Doubts began surfacing in Congress. In December 1974, it passed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, which cut off all military funding to the South Vietnamese government. The act fixed the numbers of U.S. military personnel allowed in Vietnam: 4000 within six months of enactment and 3000 within one year. Robert McNamara writes that " there is no evidence that the South Vietnamese would ever have been able to accomplish on their own what they failed to achieve with massive American assistance (replace South Vietnamese with Iraq). The level of congressional funding was irrelevant … The Nixon administration, like the Johnson administration before it, could not give the South Vietnamese the essential ingredient for success: genuine indigenous political legitimacy."

"The withdrawal of the American military had compromised an economy dependent on U.S. financial support and the presence of large numbers of U.S. troops. "

"An embittered and tearful President Thi?u resigned on the same day, declaring that the United States had betrayed South Vietnam."

US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote in a secret memo to President Gerald Ford that "in terms of military tactics, we cannot help draw the conclusion that our armed forces are not suited to this kind of war. Even the Special Forces who had been designed for it could not prevail." Even Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara concluded that "the achievement of a military victory by U.S. forces in Vietnam was indeed a dangerous illusion."

[MrTruth]

Do the policies of the Vietnam War also apply to the policies concerning Iraq and the Middle East?


"The cornerstone of U.S. policy was the Domino Theory. This argued that if South Vietnam fell to communist forces, then all of South East Asia would follow. Popularized by the Eisenhower administration, some argued that if communism spread unchecked, it would follow them home by first reaching Hawaii and follow to the West Coast of the United States. It was better, therefore, to fight communism in Asia, rather than on American soil. Thus, the Domino Theory provided a powerful motive for the American creation of a client state in southern Vietnam. The theory underpinned American policy in Vietnam for five presidencies."

In order to update this policy, just replace the following words:

South Vietnam - Iraq
South East Asia - Middle East
Eisenhower - Bush
Communism - Radical Muslim
Hawaii - Pick any state

More:

"Kennedy's policy towards South Vietnam rested on the assumption that Diem and his forces must ultimately defeat the guerrillas on their own. He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that "to introduce U.S. forces, in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences."

The quality of the South Vietnamese military, however, remained poor. Bad leadership, corruption and political interference all played a part in emasculating the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN). The frequency of guerrilla attacks rose, as the insurgency gathered steam. Hanoi's support for the NLF played a significant role. But South Vietnamese governmental incompetence was at the core of the crisis."

Why haven't we learned anything from Vietnam as we make the same mistakes in Iraq?

From the Vietnam War analysis, it was generally understood that 10 troops are needed to deal with 1 insurgent. Given this ratio, we would need an enormous number of American troops in Iraq - much more then our armed forces could ever provide.

"The U.S. military had long been schooled in offensive warfare. Regardless of political policies, U.S. commanders were institutionally and psychologically unsuited to a defensive mission."

During the 1968 presidential election, Richard M. Nixon promised "peace with honor". His plan was to build up the ARVN, so that they could take over the defense South Vietnam (the Nixon Doctrine). The policy became known as "Vietnamization", a term criticized by Robert K. Brigham for implying that, to that date, only Americans had been dying in the conflict. Vietnamization had much in common with the policies of the Kennedy administration. One important difference, however, remained. While Kennedy insisted that the South Vietnamese fight the war themselves, he attempted to limit the scope of the conflict. In pursuit of an exit strategy, Richard Nixon was prepared to employ a variety of tactics, including widening the war.

As Stanley Karnow noted, Americans "turned against the war long before America's political leaders did." Doubts began surfacing in Congress. In December 1974, it passed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, which cut off all military funding to the South Vietnamese government. The act fixed the numbers of U.S. military personnel allowed in Vietnam: 4000 within six months of enactment and 3000 within one year. Robert McNamara writes that " there is no evidence that the South Vietnamese would ever have been able to accomplish on their own what they failed to achieve with massive American assistance (replace South Vietnamese with Iraq). The level of congressional funding was irrelevant … The Nixon administration, like the Johnson administration before it, could not give the South Vietnamese the essential ingredient for success: genuine indigenous political legitimacy."

"The withdrawal of the American military had compromised an economy dependent on U.S. financial support and the presence of large numbers of U.S. troops. "

"An embittered and tearful President Thi?u resigned on the same day, declaring that the United States had betrayed South Vietnam."

US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote in a secret memo to President Gerald Ford that "in terms of military tactics, we cannot help draw the conclusion that our armed forces are not suited to this kind of war. Even the Special Forces who had been designed for it could not prevail." Even Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara concluded that "the achievement of a military victory by U.S. forces in Vietnam was indeed a dangerous illusion."

[nudebushwalker]

10 American soldiers to control each Vietnamese insurgent ?
If you check those figures in more depth, you will also find each Aussie soldier in that war was the equal of 10 Viet Cong or North Vietnamese soldiers..
Carrying this argument to its' logical conclusion, does that mean 1 Aussie is worth 100 Americans on the battle field?
At least that explains why everybody else wants the Oz' special forces in there, to clean up the hard stuff in both Iraq and Afghanistan...

[MrTruth]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nudebushwalker:
10 American soldiers to control each Vietnamese insurgent ?
If you check those figures in more depth, you will also find each Aussie soldier in that war was the equal of 10 Viet Cong or North Vietnamese soldiers..
Carrying this argument to its' logical conclusion, does that mean 1 Aussie is worth 100 Americans on the battle field?
At least that explains why everybody else wants the Oz' special forces in there, to clean up the hard stuff in both Iraq and Afghanistan... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for your reply. I will go into more details about this 10 to 1 ratio shortly. From your perspective, why were not Aussie forces successful in winning the Vietnam War? Also, does your statement about Oz Special Forces imply that the American Special Forces are somehow incompetent and not up to the task themselves?


"As U.S. allies under the ANZUS Treaty, Australia and New Zealand sent ground troops to Vietnam. Both nations had gained valuable experience in counterinsurgency and jungle warfare during the Malayan Emergency. Geographically close to Asia, they subscribed to the Domino Theory of communist expansion and felt that their national security would be threatened if communism spread further in Southeast Asia. Australia's peak commitment was 7,672 combat troops, New Zealand's 552 and most of these soldiers served in the 1st Australian Task Force which was based in Phuoc Tuy Province. Australia re-introduced conscription to expand its army in the face of significant public opposition to the war. Like the U.S., Australia began by sending advisers to Vietnam, the number of which rose steadily until 1965, when combat troops were committed. New Zealand began by sending a detachment of engineers and an artillery battery, and then started sending Special Forces and regular infantry."

South Vietnam
dead: ~250,000
wounded: ~1,170,000
U.S.
dead: 58,209
2,000 missing
wounded: 305,000[3]
South Korea
dead: 4,900
wounded: 11,000
Australia
dead: 520
wounded: 2,400*
New Zealand
dead: 37
wounded: 187
Total dead: ~314,000
Total wounded: ~1,490,000

Under the command of General Westmoreland, the U.S. increased its troop commitment to more than 553,000 American servicemen by 1969.

[luvnaturism]

MrTruth has given long quotes without identifying the source, a troublesome practice. However it's an interesting and provocative topic.

Obviously there are some parallels between Vietnam and Iraq. There are also some important differences.

One such difference is that the North Vietnamese never posed an immediate direct threat to western civilization. Radical Islam does, which we can see from attacks in the US, UK, and Spain. We also know from history that when radical Islam is on the ascendancy, as it has been at least twice before, what it does is attack western civilizations.

Bush was right in deciding that the best defense is a strong offense. This will be debated by historians and others for a long time to come, but it well may be that Iraq was as good a place to start as any other.

Where it fell apart was in the administration's utter, absolute incompetence in planning for the transitional period after the initial battles were won. The military understood that, given both Iraq's history of tribal and religious hatreds and the probability that surrounding nations would want to become involved across Iraq's porous borders, it would take a lot of personnel to keep control.

The initial military plans called for 350,000 to 500,000 troops, depending on circumstances. They didn't need that many to overthrow Saddam's government, but they would be needed to keep the peace afterward. Rumsfeld was determined to demonstrate a new model of warfare: quick victory with a small force that was so mobile that its movements couldn't be anticipated, so he kept demanding "fresh thinking" until the force was so small that they couldn't control the country afterwards.

The initial military phase was planned in careful detail over nearly two years. Hardly any thought at all was given to planning for the aftermath, and what planning there was had an aura of wishful thinking. For instance Rumsfeld insisted on appointing a civilian official to take charge who had no previous experience in the Middle East in order to bring in fresh thinking. So we got Paul Bremmer, who was a total disaster to what we were trying to accomplish.

Actually the nation building should have been led by the State Department, not the Pentagon. The State Department had experience in that sort of thing, whereas the Pentagon had none. Probably Rumsfeld was able to sieze that role because Colin Powell understood all along that we were headed for disaster and wanted nothing to do with it.

The bottom line is that Rumsfeld was a poor choice for the job who should have been replaced two years before he was. The responsibility for that stops on Bush's desk.

But Bush is right on this point: it's a war that we simply must win. Personally I think that we'll be fighting radical Islam for the next 50 to 100 years--not always in Iraq, but always having to fight. It simply isn't going to go away. It's just so tragic that Bush listened to the wrong advisors, and continued to follow them long after events proved their incompetence.

[MrTruth]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">MrTruth has given long quotes without identifying the source, a troublesome practice. However it's an interesting and provocative topic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is clear that Mr Truth should probably not post without listing all sources. If this proves to be too burdensome, then in the future, Mr Truth will not post the topic.

With that said, let the discussions concerning this topic begin (if there are any discussions).

[hm0504]

Though there is certainly value in comparing Vietnam and Iraq, many of the fundamentals in the initial post are wrong.

The main one being that Iraq was NOT an Islamist state, it was one of the free-est (Kurds excepted), most secular states in the Middle East (which isn't saying much, but is still something). Now that Bush has gone in, Iraq is now rapidly becoming an Islamist state. It would be like if Bush decided to invade Japan to bring it freedom and democracy and within a few years of doing so, formerly democratic, capitalist Japan became a Communist bastion.

I cringe at the line above which says
Eisenhower = Bush
Eisenhower is I think one of the world's greatest statesman of all time; Bush is pretty much the absolute opposite.

I believe Bush went into Iraq believing that because it was so advanced, relatively, for the Middle East, it would be easy for America to adopt it as the 51st state.

This movie trailer captures Bush's Iraq disaster nicely:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGPp-WhgEXE

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But Bush is right on this point: it's a war that we simply must win. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What does "win" mean?

We won the war in Iraq in a few weeks. We defeated their military, deposed their leadership, and took possession of their government and oil fields. Bush was right about 'mission accomplished'.

We haven't won the occupation, and frankly we can't. Only the Iraqi people themselves can do that, and so far we aren't helping a bit. We are standing in the middle of a multiside civil war, with a strategy of preventing any one side from winning. Thus we are now arming the very insurgents who are responsible for 92% of our casualties. We are accusing Shi'ites of being "al Qaeda". Insanity. And we are doing this because we can't allow America to look weak or foolish by leaving "with the job undone", whatever the hell that job is. Reality check: nothing is worse for America's image and standing in the world than STAYING in Iraq - the only thing that is still respected about our government is its economic and military power - our moral authority and leadership ranks somewhere between Mugabe's and lil' Kim's (http://www.korea-dpr.com/pmenu.htm).

So do tell. What does winning in Iraq mean? And is it something that can be achieved through military force?

-Mark

[MrTruth]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I cringe at the line above which says
Eisenhower = Bush
Eisenhower is I think one of the world's greatest statesman of all time; Bush is pretty much the absolute opposite. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that you may be interpreting this incorrectly. I never meant to imply that Eisenhower is anything like George Bush. The reason for exchanging some of the words from the Vietnam statement with contemporary words was to draw some parallels between the two wars.

It is obvious that Iraq is not Vietnam. However, this does not mean that the lessons of Vietnam should not be reviewed and considered when dealing with the Iraq War. One interesting difference between the two wars is that in the beginning, Ho Chi Minh did write several letters to Truman asking for support in forming a (French colony) free Vietnam. Due to many fears about the spread of global communism and a belief that Ho Chi Minh was a (bad) communist, such appeals were ignored. Vietnam didn't start out this way but eventually resulted into a cold war where East (Communist) forces that were supported by China and the USSR fought against Western forces led by the USA.

Iraq is not a cold war. Iraq is clearly an ethnically divided nation. I believe that the USA went into Iraq with many good intentions. I believe that it was our intention to rid Iraq of Sadam and create a democratic free nation. Unfortunately, it was not clearly understood that you can not bomb people into seeing things your way and that most people in Iraq had absolutely no understanding of what a democracy is. The lesson from Vietnam is that a country needs the support and understanding from the majority of the population within that country if a new way of governing is to have any chance of establishing itself.

The problem within Iraq right now is that the USA can not stay indefinitely and the USA can not suddely withdraw. The USA can not rule or govern Iraq....only the Iraq people can do that and until the sectarian violence comes to some resolution this appears to be impossible.

The Iraq war situation could be resolved overnight by withdrawing every American troop within Iraq and then using the most god aweful weapons on this planet to stop the violence and killing by killing every living human being within that country. This solution is technically possible but politically, morally, ethically, etc impossible and is not even a remote possibility. The USA is bound by a code of morality, decency, and laws that prevent us from becoming the barbarians that we are fighting against.

[NudeAl]

One of the smartest commanders I ever knew once said that the thing you have to do is ask the civlilian authorisng the operation, and then what? After all the military goals have been achieved, after all the humanitarian aid has been rendered, after all the government agencies have been established what is the final thing that allows you to leave and return the country to the people who live there?

There is always an additional task to do.

[Bobx23456]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeAl:
One of the smartest commanders I ever knew once said that the thing you have to do is ask the civlilian authorisng the operation, and then what? After all the military goals have been achieved, after all the humanitarian aid has been rendered, after all the government agencies have been established what is the final thing that allows you to leave and return the country to the people who live there?

There is always an additional task to do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lost wars are the ones you withdrawl (or retreat) from. Won wars are the ones where you stay a long while.

US troops left Viet Nam.

There are still US Troops in Korea, Japan, Germany from the 20th century. There are US troops in Cuba, and the Phillipines left from the 19th century. Heck, we still have troops in Virginia.

Blessings

Bob

[usmc1]

Without busting a sweat one can quickly figure out a couple of things:

The domino theory was wrong.

Iraq had no WMD which threatened the U.S.

Iraq had no nurturing relationship with Al Queda.

Iraq had no involvement in the terror attacks of 9/ll.

Democracy can't be imposed at gunpoint.

And the theory that Democracy imposed on a country will function as a reverse domino effect, like watching a backwards running film of falling dominoes suddenly springing up and standing erect, creating newly-born democracies spreading through a region where millenniums of tribal authoritarianism has been the rule is also wrong.

We live in a very dangerous world and are at great peril and therefore should marshall our forces, remain vigilant, build alliances and not squander our military, treasury, national unity and world esteem on a misbegotten, military occupation of a fractured society at war with its self.

All the rest is BS. Yes, we must make ourselves and help others to make themselves safe from terrorism. We can't do that by creating the very environment from which "terrorists" grow and are trained.

Why does Congress not protect us and the Constitution but shutting off the funds? That's what they did during the Vietnam War

And, we must ask ourselves certain things. Why were we lied into this war? Why do we remain in the occupation? And why does our media not serve us as it did during Watergate, Vietnam and other times in the past when is stood up to corruption and excess and protect the Constitution? And finally, why are Cheney and Bush not impeached and held accountable.

Do we not understand that if they are not impeached and the things they have wrought rolled back and removed that the next President or the one after, whether right or left, Democrat or Republican, will use them as precedent?

Take Libby alone. If that is left to stand, the next and all future presidents will have a precedent whereby he/she can destroy political opponents and pardon the destroyer.

And there is so, so much more.

Nope, the only similarities between Iraq and Vietnam is that our military is being savaged, good people are dying and the careerists are thriving.

In the final summation, it is really now up to us, the people to bring about the change and we really do not have the luxury of waiting for November '08 and pretending that an election will make a huge difference. It won't, unless we first turn out this crowd and undo the precedents they are setting!.

[MrTruth]

The Founding Fathers created or framed the Constitution in the manner or way that they did because they specifically did not want any one person to have too much power or control. Such power or control could lead to a dictatorship form of government. With this thought in mind, the Founding Fathers created a Constitution that specied that there were to be three unique and seperate branches of governement. These were entirely seperate branches of government that were supposed to work together to ensure the smooth and efficient operation of government and to ensure that the rights of the citizens (Specified in the Bill of Rights) not be ignored, disallowed, or abused. This process is accomplished through a series of checks and balances that one branch of government may use to check another branch in order to maintain a balance of power between the three branches of government. The three branches of government are the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. The Executive Branch consists of President, Vice President, and certain supporting departments and independant agencies. The Legislative Branch consists of Congress and supporting agencies such as the Library of Congress and the Government Printing Office. The Judicial Branch consists of the Supreme Court and other Federal Courts.

If the Executive Branch is either perceived or actually overstepping it's authority, then it is specified in the Constitution that another branch (ie the Legislative or Judicial Branch in this case) be responsible for taking actions to bring the overstepping Executive Branch branch back into line. With what is generally presently perceived to be a major expansion of Executive powers, it is up to Congress (or Supreme Court) to challenge this expansion. However, it presently appears that the Republicans in Congress believe that their job is to support their President and the Democrats in Congress believe that it is their job to take any and every political advantage that they can against the Republicans and President. Neither party seems willing to put party politics aside, to come together to fulfill their responsibilities as outlined in the Constitution, and to do what is best for this country and it's citizens.

A precidence is also perceived to have taken place in that a major expansion of the Executive Branch powers have taken place. Unless these powers are challenged (checked), they will ultimately stand as official established Presidental policy and these powers will then be used by any future president. No President will willingly give up power or authority and this is why it is critically important for other branches of government do their job as outlined in the Constitution!

Unfortunately, the majority of our citizens do not understand how our government is supposed to operate and what is presently at stake.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If the Executive Branch is either perceived or actually overstepping it's authority, then it is specified in the Constitution that another branch (ie the Legislative or Judicial Branch in this case) be responsible for taking actions to bring the overstepping Executive Branch branch back into line. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The Constitution provides a specific remedy for this: Tough Talk on Impeachment (video) (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/video_popups/pop_vid_impeachment1-1.html)
<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI> "The founding fathers expected an executive who tried to overreach and expected the executive would be hampered and curtailed by the legislative branch... They [Congress] have basically renounced — walked away from their responsibility to oversee and check." — Bruce Fein

<LI> "On January 20th, 2009, if George Bush and Dick Cheney are not appropriately held to account this Administration will hand off a toolbox with more powers than any President has ever had, more powers than the founders could have imagined. And that box may be handed to Hillary Clinton or it may be handed to Mitt Romney or Barack Obama or someone else. But whoever gets it, one of the things we know about power is that people don't give away the tools." — John Nichols [/list]
Impeachment is needed even if it happens AFTER 2008. We can't allow ANY president to have the powers this president and vice president have claimed.

[MrTruth]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"The founding fathers expected an executive who tried to overreach and expected the executive would be hampered and curtailed by the legislative branch... They [Congress] have basically renounced — walked away from their responsibility to oversee and check." — Bruce Fein </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, this statement is true.

The system of checks and balances is a part of our Constitution. It guarantees that no part of the government becomes too powerful. For example, the legislative branch is in charge of making laws. The executive branch can veto the law, thus making it harder for the legislative branch to pass the law. The judicial branch may also say that the law is unconstitutional and thus make sure it is not a law.

The legislative branch can also remove a president or judge that is not doing his/her job properly. The executive branch appoints judges and the legislative branch approves the choice of the executive branch. Again, the branches check and balance each other so that no one branch has too much power.

This is how the system of checks and balances is supposed to work: (from usconstitution)

The American constitutional system includes a notion known as the Separation of Powers. In this system, several branches of government are created and power is shared between them. At the same time, the powers of one branch can be challenged by another branch. This is what the system of checks and balances is all about.

There are three branches in the United States government as established by the Constitution. First, the Legislative branch makes the law. Second, the Executive branch executes the law. Last, the Judicial branch interprets the law. Each branch has an effect on the other.

Legislative Branch

Checks on the Executive

Impeachment power (House)
Trial of impeachments (Senate)
Selection of the President (House) and Vice President (Senate) in the case of no majority of electoral votes
May override Presidential vetoes
Senate approves departmental appointments
Senate approves treaties and ambassadors
Approval of replacement Vice President
Power to declare war
Power to enact taxes and allocate funds
President must, from time-to-time, deliver a State of the Union address

Checks on the Judiciary

Senate approves federal judges
Impeachment power (House)
Trial of impeachments (Senate)
Power to initiate constitutional amendments
Power to set courts inferior to the Supreme Court
Power to set jurisdiction of courts
Power to alter the size of the Supreme Court

Checks on the Legislature - because it is bicameral, the Legislative branch has a degree of self-checking.

Bills must be passed by both houses of Congress
House must originate revenue bills
Neither house may adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other house
All journals are to be published


Executive Branch

Checks on the Legislature

Veto power
Vice President is President of the Senate
Commander in chief of the military
Recess appointments
Emergency calling into session of one or both houses of Congress
May force adjournment when both houses cannot agree on adjournment
Compensation cannot be diminished

Checks on the Judiciary

Power to appoint judges
Pardon power

Checks on the Executive

Vice President and Cabinet can vote that the President is unable to discharge his duties


Judicial Branch

Checks on the Legislature

Judicial review
Seats are held on good behavior
Compensation cannot be diminished

Checks on the Executive

Judicial review
Chief Justice sits as President of the Senate during presidential impeachment

In conclusion, either the Congress has investigated the Executive Branch and determined that there is no excessive use of it's authority or it has not. If it has investigated, then no apparent disciplinary action has taken place and thus the Congress has found no excessive use of Executive Branch authority. Also, if there has been no need for an investigation, then the Congress up front has determined that there is no excessive use of Executive Branch authority. If, for some reason, the Congress has been derelict in their duty to investigate and perform an executive Branch check and balance, then the responsibility falls upon the Judicial Branch to determine if Congress has failed to perform it's duties as required by law. If Congress has failed to perform it's duties, then I am not sure what the legal remedy will be. The Founding Fathers were more concerned about an Executive Branch breach of power and created remedies for this breach but they did not concentrate upon a situation where the Executive Branch execeeded it's authority and the Legislative branch failed to perform it's duties of a proper check and balance.

[usmc1]

Mark, Truth at least three of us see it and are each saying the same thing with different words.

But, the one single thing missing is that other part of government, the fourth estate. The media. Always before it has been the one that carried the message to the public that things were amiss. Today, except for a notable handful of newspapers, the media has abdicated its role.

Unless you and I, and tens and tens of thousands of others use the internet, faxes and phones to hammer on congress, it will not happen. We must be our own media.

As certain as God made little shiny pennies we're (liberals and conservatives alike) are going to lose this thing if we don't.

Frankly, I'm sick of Pelosi and the minority leader and the rest of them playing politics, this country is in jeopardy, and all the knowledgeable, finally honed, well-researched academic debates citations of what the founders intended does not suffice. We need action, not learned discussion or disputation.

Screw the founders, screw Pelosi, screw em all. The people must act and hammer congress harder than their corporate masters.

There is not a single candidate (Dem or GOP) out there in this premature presidential f**keroo going on right now that is even talking about the Constitution and balance of powers and the danger this nation is in. They do not not give a pile of hammered rat dung about us--it is up to us to make them care.

Why? Because the insidious bas**ds and b**tardettes can't wait to get their hands on what Bush, Cheney & Rove are building. And let me digress and ask this question, does anyone, after Florida & Ohio, really believe that that Hydra will let go of their baby just based on an election? C'mon.

Enlightened debate and outrage, and learned discussion and facts, and the freeking founders did not help with FL or OH. Yeah the media was deaf and dumb, yeah congress was supine, yeah the supremes are as idealogically corrupt as Capone....but, WE failed. We let it happen and had, and continue to have, learned debate, conjectures about the founders instead of taking action.

Impeach the mo-fos this minute!

It is time for action up to the very limit of what you are capable of. There are grassroots organizations out there working for us, find them, join, help out, donate, sign their petitions and chain e-mails, forward to your friends, put their orgs up on your blogs, sites and myspace.

Damn, guys! screw the founders, screw the parties, let's take our frigging country back.

[MrTruth]

The Legislative Branch is bicameral. It is composed of two different political parties that are in theory supposed to perform a check and balance on each other. If both parties see a major advantage to increased Executive Branch power and authority and believe that this will be a major benefit to their potentially elected candidates for the Executive Branch during the next election, then this check and balance may break down. If this occurs, then you can be assured that there will be no impeachment hearings. The Executive Branch will not willingly give up power and it is up to the Legislative Branch to limit power and authority. If this is not done, then the authority and power of the Executive Branch will expand. Nancy Pelosi has already commented that there will be no impeachment hearings.

[MJ_KC]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
We haven't won the occupation, and frankly we can't. Only the Iraqi people themselves can do that, and so far we aren't helping a bit. We are standing in the middle of a multiside civil war </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree with what you wrote. It would seem that an increasing percentage of adults are not really for a withdrawal from Iraq, but rather to quit taking sides and fighting their battles for them.

We can stay and train them from as secure a location as possible, but they should do their own patrols and police their own people. I think that this got 40+% of the vote and every other option was less than 30%.

The option of staying the course was in the low single digits. An immediate withdrawal and a somewhat delayed withdrawal were the #2 and #3, well below the #1 choice.

A lot of people seemed to think that we need a new mission in Iraq and that is as advisors and trainers only. We need to get our people off the streets and highways.

[Naturist Mark]

After 4 years of 'training up' Iraqi forces, at a time when they should have several hundred thousand troops ready and able to stand on their own, our Pentagon says that only 6000 Iraqi soldiers are able to perform without American troops holding their hands at every step. How long does it take to train up an American soldier? 9 weeks? Clearly the Iraqi's aren't taking their own security seriously, and won't while we are their training wheels.

Let's withdraw our troops to bases. We'll protect the borders (as well as possible) to prevent foreign armies from entering from Syria, Iran ... and Saudi Arabia and Turkey. THEY will take care of their own rebels ... or not. We'll deal with whomever brings order. Meanwhile we'll protect the borders and feed the refugees.

Not an ideal way to do it, but we and they had 4 years to do it the 'easy' way, and we, and they, declined. If Iraq had wanted the "freedom and democracy" we tried to impose on them, THEY would have fought harder for it, instead of fighting against us. But who can blame them, we'd fight to the death against the most benevolent of foreign invaders in our country. Our fight should be over. We toppled Saddam's regime, we won. The future of Iraq is up to Iraq, once we we get out of the way they can decide whether the journey will be peaceful or bloody - we can only give them options - their choice.

We have our own country to save - if we have the guts to save it.

-Mark

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
After 4 years of 'training up' Iraqi forces, at a time when they should have several hundred thousand troops ready and able to stand on their own, our Pentagon says that only 6000 Iraqi soldiers are able to perform without American troops holding their hands at every step. How long does it take to train up an American soldier? 9 weeks? Clearly the Iraqi's aren't taking their own security seriously, and won't while we are their training wheels.

Let's withdraw our troops to bases. We'll protect the borders (as well as possible) to prevent foreign armies from entering from Syria, Iran ... and Saudi Arabia and Turkey. THEY will take care of their own rebels ... or not. We'll deal with whomever brings order. Meanwhile we'll protect the borders and feed the refugees.

Not an ideal way to do it, but we and they had 4 years to do it the 'easy' way, and we, and they, declined. If Iraq had wanted the "freedom and democracy" we tried to impose on them, THEY would have fought harder for it, instead of fighting against us. But who can blame them, we'd fight to the death against the most benevolent of foreign invaders in our country. Our fight should be over. We toppled Saddam's regime, we won. The future of Iraq is up to Iraq, once we we get out of the way they can decide whether the journey will be peaceful or bloody - we can only give them options - their choice.

We have our own country to save - if we have the guts to save it.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Forgetting for the moment that you may be using a rhetorical device, I disagree with your first paragraph and strongly agree with your last one.

I disagree with the idea that the blame for Iraq today belongs primarily to the Iraqis. In 2003, Iraq was one of the more functional societies in the Middle East. What happened? The U.S. invaded and demolished the power structure from Saddam down to the clerks. All this in a society which in tribal terms is around where the West was at about 200 or so years ago.

I expect there are well over 6000 battle-ready Iraqi troops. The problem with the hundreds of thousands of trained Iraqi troops is that masses of them are "unreliable" to use a Pentagon word. By "unreliable", though it can be inept or unmotivated, in the Iraqi sense it often means not loyal to the American military authorities. Due to the tribal issues, no doubt inflamed by the disaster of the last few yerars, most Iraqis are primarily loyal to their tribe and that's that.

Anyway, this just in, Iraqi PM Maliki has said American troops can leave "anytime", Iraqi forces are ready to take over:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/14/iraq.military.ap/index.html

Frankly, it would appear the only significant political power these days that wants American troops to stay in Iraq is the White House.

[NudeAl]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
After 4 years of 'training up' Iraqi forces, at a time when they should have several hundred thousand troops ready and able to stand on their own, our Pentagon says that only 6000 Iraqi soldiers are able to perform without American troops holding their hands at every step. How long does it take to train up an American soldier? 9 weeks? Clearly the Iraqi's aren't taking their own security seriously, and won't while we are their training wheels.

Let's withdraw our troops to bases. We'll protect the borders (as well as possible) to prevent foreign armies from entering from Syria, Iran ... and Saudi Arabia and Turkey. THEY will take care of their own rebels ... or not. We'll deal with whomever brings order. Meanwhile we'll protect the borders and feed the refugees.

Not an ideal way to do it, but we and they had 4 years to do it the 'easy' way, and we, and they, declined. If Iraq had wanted the "freedom and democracy" we tried to impose on them, THEY would have fought harder for it, instead of fighting against us. But who can blame them, we'd fight to the death against the most benevolent of foreign invaders in our country. Our fight should be over. We toppled Saddam's regime, we won. The future of Iraq is up to Iraq, once we we get out of the way they can decide whether the journey will be peaceful or bloody - we can only give them options - their choice.

We have our own country to save - if we have the guts to save it.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree it would seem the most reasonable solution. I don't think anyone in charge is honestly looking at it. I think everyone is focused on the current operations and sort of looking at it as a do or die situation. If the surge dosen't work and it is looking that way now we have to be prepared to take serious action we will need to look at a new dierection. It will also probably mean that General Petreaus is out and looking for a new job. I think that the politicians enjoy the debate too much to actually do anything about the situation. They enjoy pointing their fingers at the other side to much to offer anything substantive to actually solve the problems we face. It is up to every citizen in this country to make our voices heard to these public office holders in power and let them know we can remove from power next election.

[MJ_KC]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
Let's withdraw our troops to bases. We'll protect the borders (as well as possible) to prevent foreign armies from entering from Syria, Iran ... and Saudi Arabia and Turkey. THEY will take care of their own rebels ... or not. We'll deal with whomever brings order. Meanwhile we'll protect the borders and feed the refugees. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is what I would like to see done. It is time for the Iraqis to decide whether they really want to step up and take control of security in their own country or not. We simply can't do the job for them forever.

This isn't a cut and run policy that the hard line Republicans rant about, this is the U.S. getting out of the internal policing of a country and having the people who live there take care of their own internal problems.

There will still probably need to be some continuing assaults on any outsiders who come in and try to set up training and supply bases. At least we can get our people to stop trying to be policemen for people who resent our continued presence.

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MJ_KC:
...
This is what I would like to see done. It is time for the Iraqis to decide whether they really want to step up and take control of security in their own country or not. We simply can't do the job for them forever.
... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The idea of "Iraqis" is largely artificial. Iraq is largely a construct of Western colonial days. Within the borders or Iraq are three main ethnic groups Kurds, Sunnis, and Shia. Though, for a Middle Eastern country, Iraq has had a good number of people who could see beyond ethnicity, most of these have either gone into hiding, been exiled, or been killed. The rest of the three ethnic groups behave much like ethnic groups did in the West prior to the last couple of hundred years -- they try to kill each other.

The U.S., and the world, owe it to Iraq to consider the division of Iraq into three separate states. Unfortunately, that is not a magic solution either as it will exacerbate tensions among Iraq's neighbours. And IraN will likely win big -- a prospect unappealing to the U.S. and Israel.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Unfortunately, that is not a magic solution either as it will exacerbate tensions among Iraq's neighbours. And IraN will likely win big -- a prospect unappealing to the U.S. and Israel. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have the perfect solution to preventing "Iran from winning big" - make them part of the process. Drop the saber rattling, idiotic talk of 'axis of evil' and accept the olive branch their previous president held out to us (only to be swatted away (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC4WEcBDq2A) by our <STRIKE>most villainous traitor</STRIKE> vice president) - bring them INTO Iraq as guarantors of the Shi'ite sector's peace and reconstruction - and their full cooperation in shutting down international terrorism (al Qaeda is their enemy too). At best Iran becomes a partner in peace and stability, at worst they become entangled in the Iraq quagmire, either option works.

Our biggest obstacle is not Iran, it is the Saudi Royal Family (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-saudi15jul15,0,3132262.story?coll=la-home-center) - the ONLY people (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/28/cheney-saudi/) able to tell Cheney (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014403.php) what to do. They are why the Administration has turned its back on our Shi'ite allies (SCIRI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Council_for_the_Islamic_Revolution_in_Iraq )) and is now supplying and training the very insurgents who are responsible for 92% of American casualties.

And as a note to Albinus - my first paragraph was not really rhetorical - but YES, I realize that the Iraqi troops (http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20070714/ldb070715.gif) are not as incompetent and untrained as they appear. When the groups to which they really owe their allegiances are forced to deal with the security issues that the Coalition forces deal with for them, they are capable of stepping up. Of course the real question is which way they decide to step.

-Mark

[nudebushwalker]

On July 14th, MrTruth wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Thank you for your reply. I will go into more details about this 10 to 1 ratio shortly. From your perspective, why were not Aussie forces successful in winning the Vietnam War? Also, does your statement about Oz Special Forces imply that the American Special Forces are somehow incompetent and not up to the task themselves? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I wouldn't call anyone's Special Forces incompetent - not the US, nor Russia, or China or anyone else with a decent military. However the 'Special Forces' are just that - special - the elite, the top fraction of a percent of anyone's soldiers. And the 'best of the best' have long been considered to be the British and Aussie SAS regiments; whilst the "toughest" soldiers out there are universally acknowledged as those Nepalese Ghurkas who operate as an elite unit within the British SAS.
And with British and Aussie SAS and Commando units working side-by-side with US and other Special forces, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, surely they will all come out of this the better for it??

What is letting down the American side would have to be at the bottom end - where the Bush administration is guilty of sending in too many unprepared, under-trained and poorly equipped National Guard and Reservist recruits to bolster the numbers [as enquiries into those Abu Ghraib debacles pointed out - those Under-trained National Guard and Reserve members made up well over 30% of the US contingent - a much healthier figure would have been between 5 and 10%, (and with an extra 8 or 9 weeks training under their belts).

No doubt some people out there will think of the US Navy Seals as being some kind of "tough mothers", but in comparison with anyone's Army commandos they really are a bunch of big "girlie men", to borrow a quote from the Governator himself...
Two examples -
* back in the 1990's a group of would-be-heroes from the US Navy Seals joined some everyday Aussie sailors for an overnight bushwalk in Northern NSW, after a combined training exercise up in Queensland. As soon as the terrain (up on the foothills of Mount Warning) started getting a little steep those big tough seals panicked, dropped their packs and apparently ran back down that hill squealing like the 'Nancy boys' they are...
* Every year there is a 100 km cross-country race from the North side of Sydney up to the Central Coast region in NSW. A couple of times over the past decade the US Navy Seals have entered teams. Unfortunately, nobody ever saw them after the first few hours (no endurance..) - maybe the search parties are still out there looking for them? [As an aside the most successful teams over the years - and the record holders - have come from the above-mentioned Ghurka unit..].
I blame the Charlie Sheen movie for the false impressions some people seem to have here..

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
...
Our biggest obstacle is not Iran, it is the Saudi Royal Family (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-saudi15jul15,0,3132262.story?coll=la-home-center) - the ONLY people (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/28/cheney-saudi/) able to tell Cheney (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014403.php) what to do. They are why the Administration has turned its back on our Shi'ite allies (SCIRI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Council_for_the_Islamic_Revolution_in_Iraq )) and is now supplying and training the very insurgents who are responsible for 92% of American casualties.
...
-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With its old Iraq strategy (and I use the word "strategy" very generously here) in shambles, the White House now thinks that Iraq is best served (from the point of view of America) by one or more strong Sunni warlords not afraid to take the hard-hitting action necessary to quell disloyal Iraqis. In short, people who make Saddam Hussein look like Mr. Rogers.