On 16 October 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq. As House Joint Resolution 114, the measure passed the House on 10 October 2002 with a vote of 296-133 (3 no votes). 126 of the nay votes registered were voiced by Democrats, with only 81 House Democrats voting for the resolution. The next day, in Senate chambers, the proposal cleared the upper chamber by a vote of 77-23. Twenty-one nays were spoken by Democrats; the yeas, unfortunately, are a roll call of some of the most powerful Democratic senators in Congress. Current 2008 presidential candidates Hillary Clinton (NY), John Edwards (NC), and Joseph Biden (DE) all voted in favor of H.J.R. 114. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (SD) also ranked among the heavy-hitting Democrats to authorize Bush's reign of terror in Mesopotamia.
Why, less than two years after a bitterly-run partisan election in which many Democrats still felt (and still feel today) that Bush stole the election in Florida, did the Democratic minority not stand stronger against such heinous abuse of executive power? Over a year after the tragedy of 11 September 2001, clearer heads failed to prevail. The resolution preyed on the popular fear in American society that another terrorist attack was just around the corner. Fabricating myths of a strong al-Qaeda presence, growing arsenals of weapons of mass destruction, and Iraqi hostilities toward the United States (with the most recent example offered being the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H.W. Bush), the President gained his rubber-stamp approval to attack Iraq by breeding unwarranted fear.
Ten years earlier, Bush's father and his Cabinet had shrewdly realized that Saddam Hussein was only a threat to the other nations of the region when he was let off his tether. If Hussein was watched vigilantly and prevented from hatching secret plans, he posed little threat to even its direct neighbors. The Iraqis were beat back easily from Kuwait, and the nation's infrastructure was still weak from its eight-year war with Iran. Only President G.W. Bush's State of the Union address following the terrorist attacks hinted of any threat from Iraq. The government planted its seeds carefully, slowly gaining popular will to converge on the crippled country and further obliterate its crumbling faade. And, on the opposite end of 2002, the gambit paid off as Bush was authorized to make war with Iraq, find the weapons of mass destruction, oust Saddam Hussein, and instill peace and democracy in the beleaguered populace.
Five years later, hindsight shows us that Bush has still been able to make war with Iraq, despite the accomplishment of one mission (Hussein captured, beheaded), the discovery that the second was impossible (there were no weapons of mass destruction), and the gathering realization that the third is undesired by the majority of Iraqis. Democrats, realizing now that they were duped so many resolutions ago, are not looking to "create a time machine" to change the past and "do over" H.J.R. 114. Rather, with a new majority in both legislative houses, the Democrats are attempting to rein in the powers ceded to the President five years prior. As the military's role has evolved from conquest to peacekeeping to counter-insurgency missions, so too should the President's sphere of power over the conflict.
Military spending has been under-documented and ever-escalating through the duration of the Bush administration. A substantive change in Iraq foreign policy will only come once this spending is curbed and regulated. Troop demands have overextended our nation's soldiers; some are serving their third, fourth, even fifth tours of duty with little time to visit family or gain a moment's respite from the horrors of war. And, far from improvement, the civil war between sectarian factions has proven that no quantity of American troops alone will be able to plant the seeds of democracy and peace in the region. The current actions of Congress are geared toward realizing the current situation and altering the rights of the executive to continue war to accordingly reflect the current situation. With five-year-old terms of engagement, the President is free to further overextend our military to the detriment of our internal security.
In retrospect, it is apparent that many Democratic Senators would gladly change their 2002 votes on this resolution. It is a painful lesson to learn. But, far from dreaming up a time machine to change everything, our elected officials are finally taking steps toward redefining our mission in Iraq. Only once we are on a new course of action will our nation be secure and the Iraqis be forced to stop fighting a common enemy and start looking inward at what they are doing to the only home they have.