This War is Grounds for Impeachment

 Opposition to the War on Policy Grounds

People are angry about our attack on Iran. I have seen a lot of criticisms of this war. Some say that Trump is somehow a puppet of Netanyahu or of Israel. In this view, the war is just another example of how we have been tricked into supporting Israel, which is - as those who espouse this view see it - an anachronistic, colonialist project, which we should not support.

Another critique of the war says that it is all about oil. In this view, our attack on Iran is just another expression of our attempt to control, and to profit from the Middle East’s oil. A third critique says that this war is yet another expression of the power of what Pres. Eisenhower called “the military-industrial complex.” Those who espouse this view say in effect that we entered the war to provide an opportunity for the defense companies to make profits.

Those who hold these views criticize the war as policy. They say that it is a bad policy. They say that the majority of the American people oppose the war. They say that the United States should not have attacked Iran., but none of these critiques contest the president’s right to attack Iran. The people who hold these views say that the attack on Iran is bad but not that it is illegal.

Opposition to the War on Constitutional Grounds

I think that we should oppose the war on Iran because it is illegal. Our Constitution gives to Congress – and only to Congress - the right to declare war. While the president as commander in chief of the armed forces may engage them in military action without the approval of Congress, he may do so only in an emergency. The War Powers Act of 1973 states:

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

There has been no declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, and no one, including Mr. Trump, has alleged that Iran attacked “the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." So, this war has no legal basis at all, and Mr. Trump’s ordering our forces to attack Iran should be seen as an impeachable offence. He is a rogue president who is trampling on our Constitution and our democracy.

Some members of Congress recognize the situation for what it is, and they introduced a resolution to block the president from engaging in any further military action in Iran without congressional approval. The resolution failed because the president’s Republican supporters control both houses of Congress. Speaker Mike Johnson in a truly Orwellian moment even said that we are not at war.  He also said that the restrictions contained in the War Powers Act of 1973 are unconstitutional because they interfere with the powers granted to the president in Article II of the Constitution. He apparently believes that a president should be able to take this country into war whenever he feels like it, which is what Mr. Trump apparently believes as well.

This war is illegal, and that is why we should oppose it. Opposing it on policy grounds is a weak approach because there can always be disagreements about policies. The Vietnam War was bad policy, but it took ten years to bring it to a close. The Afghanistan War was bad policy, but it took twenty years to end it. This war is not just bad policy. It is illegal. It should be ended now, and the rogue how started it illegally should be impeached.

The Midterm Elections Are an Opportunity

Unfortunately, we won't be able to end the war or impeach the president now, but we can terminate the Republicans' control of Congress in this year's elections and thus open the possibility of ending the war next year.  If Trump's opponents take control of Congress, they will be able to put the brakes on his adventurism, and there have been many political and economic signs that his opponents may win this year's election. However, that will happen only if they work hard to make it happen. So, this is not a year to sit on the sidelines. Do whatever you can to help to take our country back from the madman now leading it. Let's end this illegal war!

If you enjoy reading my blog, please press the "Subscribe" button on the right hand side of the page.

Was Venezuela Trump’s Sudetenland?

 The Sudetenland, Munich and the Policy of Appeasement

The Sudetenland was an area at the western edge of Czechoslovakia (now the Czech Republic). In 1938, Adolf Hitler demanded the right to annex the Sudetenland and make it part of Germany on the grounds that its inhabitants were mostly German speakers. The Munich Conference was convened to settle Hitler’s claim, and the British and French famously gave in to his demand for the sake of what Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain called “peace in our time.” Nevertheless, a year later, Hitler invaded Poland and World War II broke out. As a result, “Munich” has become a shorthand for the futility of appeasing aggressive political leaders. Appeasement doesn't work because it emboldens the aggressors to make further demands. If we appease an aggressor today, we will only have to fight him tomorrow. Today, we see references to “Munich” used to explain why we need to resist Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

Another Lesson

However, “Munich” has another lesson to offer. It is that appeasement may also be a trap for the leader who is appeased. He may later start a war believing that no one will resist him only to learn that his belief is wrong. The war that Hitler started was a disaster for Germany. More than 6 million Germans died in the war. The country’s cities were flattened by the allied bombing. Almost 80% of the buildings in Berlin were destroyed and something like 70% of those in Cologne. 20% of Germany’s housing stock and almost half of its infrastructure – railroads, bridges and roads – were destroyed. By 1945, the German people were starving. The results of the Munich Conference were even worse in some ways for Germany than they were for the rest of Europe.

From Hitler's point of view, the takeover of the Sudetenland and the Munich Conference were a test of the allies' willingness to resist his aggression. Trump’s overthrow of the government of Venezuela may be seen as a similar test to see whether anyone would resist.  Trump encountered no serious resistance either from other countries or from political factions within the United States, and like Hitler, Trump has been emboldened to undertake bigger adventures. We can see the result now in Iran. If Trump continues down the path of expanding aggression, he will eventually encounter resistance from other major powers just as Hitler did. So far, no major power has dared to challenge our attack on Iran, although the Russians and the Chinese are giving intelligence and logistical support to Iran. So far, Trump has been able to do what he wants without serious consequences to us, but do we believe that will contine indefinitely? No doubt, Hitler believed that in the fall of 1939.

Stop the Madness

Engaging in ever-widening aggression is madness. We can stop it because, fortunately for us, we do not live in Nazi Germany. We still have freedom to criticize and to resist our government’s policies. If we value our country or the future of our children and grandchildren, we must resist with all our power. If we do not wish to see them searching for food in the ruins of New York or Chicago, we must stop the madness of expanding war now.

This year's election gives us an opportunity to stop the madness. If Trump's opponents take control of Congress, they can put the brakes on his adventurism, and there have been many political and economic signs indicating that his opponents may be able to do so. However, that will happen only if they work hard to make it happen. So, this is not a year to sit on the sidelines. Do whatever you can to help to take our country back from the madman now leading it. 

A Campaign to Unite Working Americans

 A Radical Idea

I have a really radical idea. Let’s fight this year’s electoral campaign on issues that matter to most working Americans, and let’s not focus on issues that cause working Americans fight among ourselves instead of focusing on our common enemy: the oligarchy. Let’s campaign on issues like affordable healthcare, affordable childcare and affordable housing, and let’s offer real proposals to alleviate those problems.

Let’s not argue over theoretical issues like the definition of capitalism or the definition of socialism. Let's not spend our time on questions like whether black people deserve reparations, whether transgender women should compete in women’s sports events or whether Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. All of these are valid moral questions that deserve answers, but this year, we are fighting for the life of our democracy and for a country in which ordinary, working people can afford to live. If we are to have any chance of winning this fight, we must bring working people together to vote in their own interest. We cannot spend time fighting among ourselves.

We Can Rise Together

But what about racism and sexism? Shouldn’t we also fight against them? Yes, we should, but we should do so in a way that does not present these fights as zero-sum contests within the working class. We should focus on showing that a gain for black people does not have to be a loss for white people, and a gain for women does not have to be a loss for men.

For example, if we had affordable childcare, families would gain, not just women. In a society with two-income families, affordable childcare would give all working families bigger disposable incomes. Affordable childcare would allow families to buy homes or to save more for retirement. The men in those families would be better off and not just the women.

Affordable childcare would also help to close the wealth gapbetween black households and white households. The reason is that on average, black families are disproportionately represented among families with no savings. So, any program that helped working Americans to save money would help to narrow the wealth gap between black families and white families. Similarly, affordable childcare would especially benefit women because they are disproportionately represented among single-parent families. So, affordable childcare would help to narrow the wealth gap between men and women.

We can make the same kind of an argument about affordable healthcare. A program like Medicare for All would benefit all working Americans. We would all be better off if healthcare were affordable, but affordability would especially benefit members of the groups like women and minorities that are most burdened by our present caricature of a system. They would be the ones who benefit the most even though all of us would benefit to some degree. Affordable healthcare would make it possible for people who live today from paycheck to paycheck to save money and would thus help to close the wealth gaps between black people and white people and between women and men. 

At the same time, white men would also be better off. They would not have to deal with crushing medical bills or suffer bankruptcy from unexpected medical emergencies. Their salaries could rise if companies did not have to spend so much money on health insurance for their employees.

These examples show that improving the lot of women and of black people does not require us to take anything away from white men. In fact, policies that make women and black people better off may help white men at the same time. We can rise together, and that is what we should emphasize in our campaign.

Let's Do It!

We could put together a campaign to appeal to all working Americans. Such a campaign would give us a real chance to take back our country. So, let's get busy. Let's focus on ideas that bring working Americans together so that we can take our country back!