Doglike Fidelity - The Cornerstone of the Cult of Bush

The power of Commander-in-Chief, President Bush argues, places Congress within a subservient role. It is fine for members to disagree with him, but they'd better not touch the funding for the war in Iraq. Democrats who dare to suggest that they will set conditions on war funding are accused of micromanaging the war, or of invading the President's constitutional powers.

In another domain, army First Lieutenant Watada is set to be court-marshaled again, after a mistrial, for failing to report for duty in Iraq. He has claimed that the war in Iraq is immoral, and violates the U.S. Constitution, the War Powers Act, the U.N. Charter, and the Nuremberg Principles, which bar "wars of aggression." Although he has many supporters, his stand is reviled as a threat to unquestioned obedience by many commentators of the authoritarian type.

There is a common thread tying the debates in Congress to the court-marshall of Watada. In both cases, individuals are trying to shake off the trance that has existed in this country since 9-11 gave the Bush Administration carte-blanche to pursue any aggressive foreign policies he desired. This trance has elements of a cult to it: even members of Congress and the media, whose job it is to question a president and his policies, became enthralled by the militaristic aura of the Commander-in-Chief. Like members of cults, they continued to be loyal and obedient long after it became apparent that the leader was not making sound or well-reasoned decisions.

Treating Congress first, is it really the case that any attempt by Congress to reign in the President would be unconstitutional or ill-advised? The Constitution gives the Congress the power to declare war, and the power of the purse. Were these powers really meant to be meaningless tokens, as would be the case if the current administration's views were to be accepted? The President is charged with executing wars and defending the nation. There is a compelling legal argument, put forward by Louis Fisher and others, that Congress has the sole power in deciding whether or not to engage in an offensive war. If that is the case, Bush has already acted unconstitutionally by invading Iraq without an explicit declaration of war against Iraq. Any attempts by Congress to assert some authority over the Iraq fiasco would be merely an attempt to restore constitutional balance.

The idea that a cut-off or curtailment of funds would be hurting the troops is another dangerous and absurd argument. If Congress decided to end funding for a disastrous war, the President would be compelled to withdraw the troops. Resources would certainly be provided for this withdrawal. How would withdrawing the troops from a fiasco in which they are being killed and maimed every day hurt them? The "support the troops" trope has been used far too long with far too much success by people who don't really care about the lives and limbs of the troops.

Finally, First Lieutenant Watada is simply standing up for well-established legal principles which have determined that individual soldiers in an illegal or immoral war may not use the "following orders" defense. If he truly believes the Iraq war to be illegal, he was morally and legally obligated to refuse to serve. If he believes the war to be unconstitutional, his act of disobedience is not undermining the nation, but actively defending the nation from a commander-in-chief who is threatening the very framework of our political institutions: namely, the separation of powers and the rule of law. The "law" was not meant to be whatever the President wills or decrees. Such a frightening notion, being implemented in the kangaroo court in Guantanamo, the PATRIOT act, the illegal "rendering" of foreign nationals, and elsewhere, is the real danger to freedom and security.

Let us hope that there will be more, not fewer, acts of opposition to the President's penchant for unilateral decision-making and usurpation of power. Perhaps a war against Iran, which some in the administration seem to be yearning for, can yet be avoided. The same cherry-picking of intelligence and warlike rhetoric that led to the Iraq war have already been unleashed.