No one from the Forward Party responded to my e-mail, so I don't know whether they've read it. My special appeal to the Forward Party's Veterans and Military Families Committee is appended.
from: [Eric LC]
to: [New York Forward Party], [Forward Party]
date: Mar 11, 2026, 8:00 AM
subject: The Forward Party should reconceive the Iran issue with the premise that we were right on Iraq, which is the truth.
To Craig, Mike, Sam, Erik, Shane, the New York Forward Party community, and the Forward Party at large,
I clarify and relitigate the Iraq issue at Operation Iraqi Freedom FAQ using the law and facts that define the Iraq issue. At Columbia, I catalyzed and co-founded Students United for America, which was a proto-Forward Party on campus, so I have pursued your purpose. I am ... on the Forward Party mailing list.
For all those reasons, I am writing to you in response to the Forward Party's 05MAR26 e-mail, "War, the Constitution, and Why Congress Must Do Its Job", and 03MAR26 Official Statement on Operation Epic Fury.
The "partisan battles" over Iran reinforce that the pervasive Iraq Syndrome, such as the misguiding "forever war" talking point, has become the operative political and policy context for today's Republicans and Democrats. As such, it is essential for the Forward Party's mission and your challenge to "the two major parties" that you establish the operative context that Operation Iraqi Freedom was justified and a war of necessity according to Richard Haass's taxonomy. Which is the demonstrable truth. In contrast, the Iraq Syndrome is based on a demonstrably false narrative.
The Iraq Syndrome is degenerative and toxic for the Forward Party's advocacy of "America can maintain a strong national defense and be a force for good in the world while honoring constitutional balance. A presidency that respects the law, matched with a Congress willing to act as a co-equal branch of government, strengthens our country, protects our troops, and upholds the rule of law that defines us as a nation." Whereas the 1990 to 2011 Iraq intervention, including OIF, embodies the elements of the Forward Party's platform.
At the dawn of the post-Cold War era, the American-led enforcement of UNSCR 678 was purposely designed as the baseline paradigm for the rules-based post-Cold War liberal international order, particularly to resolve rogue actors like Iran and Saddam's Iraq by upholding the aspirational rules of the reorganized international community. Iraq's mandated compliance with the comprehensive Gulf War ceasefire mandates was the primary test case for "pax Americana". With that essential evaluation of the Iraq intervention in mind, the HW Bush, Clinton, and Bush administrations and Congress conscientiously worked together to enforce UNSCR 678 and related UN resolutions per Public Law 102-190 and related US law. The Iraq intervention set the gold standard for "a president who leads, a Congress that does its job, and a political system that rewards courage instead of silence" and "decisions about war would be debated openly and decided collectively by the representatives of the American people".
However, as the degenerative Iraq Syndrome has pervaded our politics and policy, among its harmful effects, "Presidents of both parties have increasingly used military force without clear authorization from Congress. Meanwhile, Congress has too often avoided the responsibility the Constitution assigns to it." President Trump's Constitutionally messy use of force with Iran follows the precedent of President Obama's Constitutionally messy use of force with Libya. Both messy actions follow the Iraq Syndrome. In order to correct course, to apply a computer analogy, the American 'system' needs to 'revert' to a 'previous restore point' from a healthy 'state' prior to the Iraq Syndrome: On the Iran issue, the Forward Party should hold the President and Congress accountable to the gold standard of Iraq.
Excerpt from the OIF FAQ retrospective #americanprimacy section:
Stigmatizing right normalizes wrong in general. Stigmatizing an epochal paradigmatic right like the Iraq intervention fundamentally reshapes American culture, politics, policy, and leadership with metastatic premise. Clarifying and relitigating the Iraq issue means more than the 4 corners of the Saddam problem, President Bush's legacy, and Operation Iraqi Freedom itself. Since the 1990-2011 UNSCR 660-series compliance enforcement and peace operations with Iraq activated all the elements of American leadership essential to compete for the dominance of pluralistic liberal world order in the geopolitical arena, the current prevailing revisionist narrative stigmatizing the Iraq intervention lays the foundation and sets the frame for a paradigm shift antithetical to American leadership of the free world.
Again, the Iraq Syndrome that has become the operative political and policy context for "the two major parties" is based on a demonstrably false narrative. Therefore, the fundamental step to cure the Iraq Syndrome is clarifying the Iraq issue and relitigating the Iraq Syndrome's false narrative at the premise level of the politics and policy. First for yourselves and the Forward Party's membership, and then to the public at large. That achievement would substantially empower the Forward Party's mission.
The OIF FAQ organizes the dialectical material needed for the task, but I do not have the voice needed to influence the public. The Forward Party has the necessary voice to rehabilitate the operative context versus "the two major parties [who] often treat national security debates as partisan battles instead of constitutional responsibilities". You just need the corrective content to make a difference.
To help clarify the Iraq issue, I recommend the OIF FAQ base post which synthesizes the primary law and fact sources that define the Iraq issue into a coherent narrative form. It is purpose-designed to lay a proper foundation for the Iraq issue.
To help relitigate the Iraq issue, I recommend my Criticism of Hal Brands's commentary on Iraq in Hand-Off: "Reassessing Bush's Legacy: What the Transition Memoranda Do (and Don't) Reveal" for a model rebuttal of a top expert's validation of the Iraq Syndrome. My critical examination of the specious Chilcot report at Critical notes on the UK Iraq Inquiry Chilcot report is useful, too.
Imagine the difference for our politics and policy if the operative context is the public understanding that America was right on Iraq, so that our leaders aspire to the Presidents' and Congress's conscientious leadership on Iraq, most of all by President Bush, prior to the degenerative Iraq Syndrome.
To that end, the defining law, policy, precedent, and facts plainly show that President Bush's decision on Iraq was correct. Operation Iraqi Freedom was justified and a vital competitive corrective for American leadership of the free world. In the hard-won constructive wake of the "surge" and "awakening", the United States was enabling post-Saddam Iraq's progressive rehabilitation like we did with post-Nazi Germany and post-Imperial Japan and South Korea while overcoming challenges that dwarf anything we have faced with Iraq. President Obama should have stayed the course from President Bush in accordance with President Eisenhower's cardinal precedent. Instead, President Obama radically deviated to reify the Iraq Syndrome and bring about the damaging consequences that have compounded under President Biden and President Trump.
Today's Republicans and Democrats are both captured by the Iraq Syndrome. Therefore, the essential task to cure America of the Iraq Syndrome is incumbent on the Forward Party. There is no one else to do it. This is why the Forward Party exists.
I invite your critical feedback. If you have questions about my work, please ask.
#appealtoforwardveterans
PREFACE: Sarah Czech is the Chair and Collin Grier is the Vice-Chair of the Forward Veterans and Military Families Committee.
from: [Eric LC]
to: [Sarah Czech], [Collin Grier]
date: Mar 23, 2026, 5:45 PM
subject: Appeal to Forward Party Veterans and Military Families Committee Re: The Forward Party should reconceive the Iran issue with the premise that we were right on Iraq, which is the truth.
To Sarah Czech, Collin Grier, and the Forward Party Veterans and Military Families Committee,
I clarify and relitigate the Iraq issue at Operation Iraqi Freedom FAQ using the law and facts that define the Iraq issue. (Methodology)
I am writing to you in response to your 06MAR26 Forward Party article, The Two-Party Drift Toward Executive Power, to share my 11MAR26 recommendation to the Forward Party below (also posted here) in response to Forward's 03MAR26 "Official Statement on Operation Epic Fury".
In addition, I want to make a reading recommendation that ties my 11MAR26 recommendation to your article, a political strategy point, and a special appeal to the Veterans and Military Families Committee.
Reading recommendation: I expound on "the essential question for Americans is not one of pragmatic results or administrative convenience; it is about constitutional authority" at The Constitutional rule of law for war was skirted by President Clinton, reinforced by President Bush, and degraded by President Obama. To criticize my own work, my commentary should have been clearer that President Clinton did work scrupulously with Congress on some national security issues, particularly counterterrorism and Iraq. But on others, especially the Balkans intervention, Clinton set the modern precedent for the "normalization of unilateral action" that President Obama and President Trump have run with. In contrast, excerpt:
What struck me most about Bush after 9/11 was that he sought Congressional and UN certifications even when he could have – and I argue should have – simply relied on Clinton’s precedents. Moreover, with the Iraq intervention, the new certifications sought by Bush did not substantially change the policy, US statutes, and UNSC resolutions on Iraq that were already operative via Clinton.
... Bush scrupulously reintegrated the legislative-executive process in his authority as Commander-in-Chief. It wasn’t necessary. It was a reset of Presidential approach.
... As with other of Bush’s hard-won gains as Commander-in-Chief, Obama has undone Bush’s reintegration of the legislative-executive process and, instead, returned to Clinton’s ad hoc approach.
... Bush scrupulously reintegrated the legislative-executive process in his authority as Commander-in-Chief. It wasn’t necessary. It was a reset of Presidential approach.
... As with other of Bush’s hard-won gains as Commander-in-Chief, Obama has undone Bush’s reintegration of the legislative-executive process and, instead, returned to Clinton’s ad hoc approach.
Political strategy point: Consider the instrumental role of the Iraq Syndrome in marginalizing the Republicans' and Democrats' ethical centrists (I have in mind Liz Cheney and the late Joe Lieberman) and replacing them with the "ideological extremes" and "“red versus blue” narrative" that now dominate both parties. The Iraq Syndrome discredited the moderate 'establishment' leaders on both sides of the aisle to enable the rise to power of President Obama, President Trump, and their polarizing factions.
Yet, while the Iraq Syndrome has been a successful strategy for the partisans, it is also a potential pivotal vulnerability for them, as yet unexploited, since the Iraq Syndrome is based on a demonstrably false narrative. To exploit the vulnerability, the Forward Party should vigorously relitigate the Iraq Syndrome's false narrative to discredit the partisans, and hold them to account for the essential damage caused by the Iraq Syndrome. And you should clarify the Iraq issue to restore the ethical centrists who were right on Iraq in the first place.
Special appeal to the Veterans and Military Families Committee: Cure the Iraq Syndrome for the sake of our Iraq veterans, most importantly our KIA and their families. They deserve the public to understand that their mission was justified and honorable, and that our soldiers' achievements in passing the seminal leadership test of Iraq for the American leader of the free world were historic. Excerpt from New York Times writer posits "Thank you for your service" is offensive to veterans. I disagree.:
[T]he politics of war take a backseat for soldiers while they're engrossed with the tasks, conditions, and standards of the mission at hand, and keeping their men, their buddies, and themselves sound. But the why and the outcome of the war matter very much to veterans when they reflect on their experiences, contextualize them in narrative form, and weigh the consequences for their own lives, their families, their comrades, their country, the people over there, and the world.
What categorically separates 'good' wars from 'bad' wars is the prevailing narrative of the why and outcome. While the wars viewed as honorable in the zeitgeist are just as harsh in their ground and personal effects as the wars viewed as dishonorable, the prevailing narrative sets the contextual frame that colors the social value of a veteran's military service. For that reason, it's critical for the sake of Iraq veterans to correct the political distortions of the law and policy, fact basis or justification — the why — of Operation Iraqi Freedom, more so since the long-term outcome of their mission has been thrown off track. Setting the record straight in the zeitgeist is most important for the young children of our KIA in Iraq who will only ever know their father or mother through the prism of the cultural legacy of the Iraq War.
What categorically separates 'good' wars from 'bad' wars is the prevailing narrative of the why and outcome. While the wars viewed as honorable in the zeitgeist are just as harsh in their ground and personal effects as the wars viewed as dishonorable, the prevailing narrative sets the contextual frame that colors the social value of a veteran's military service. For that reason, it's critical for the sake of Iraq veterans to correct the political distortions of the law and policy, fact basis or justification — the why — of Operation Iraqi Freedom, more so since the long-term outcome of their mission has been thrown off track. Setting the record straight in the zeitgeist is most important for the young children of our KIA in Iraq who will only ever know their father or mother through the prism of the cultural legacy of the Iraq War.
What is the cultural legacy of the Iraq War correctly understood? Excerpt from Criticism of Hal Brands's commentary on Iraq in Hand-Off: "Reassessing Bush's Legacy: What the Transition Memoranda Do (and Don't) Reveal":
[T]he UNSCR 678 enforcement of UNSCR 687 and related resolutions amounted to a proof-of-concept test for "pax Americana" ... In 2010, America officially passed the seminal leadership test of Iraq. But then President Obama radically deviated with Iraq to throw it away.
... As President Kennedy forecast at West Point in June 1962, the real leadership test was always how the American president and our peace operators on the ground would respond when challenged by an insurgency that evoked the Vietnam Syndrome. The American president needed to hold onto the rope when it burned, which Bush did. The US forces in Iraq needed to prove to the watching world that when the OIF occupation lost the initiative to the Saddamist insurgency's vicious attacks on the Iraqi people like Saddam's genocidal rule of Iraq, the United States would respond to the setback by standing fast, staying resolute politically, and adjusting competitively on the ground to beat the Saddamist insurgency and thereby uphold the "US policy in Iraq". Which our soldiers did.
... As President Kennedy forecast at West Point in June 1962, the real leadership test was always how the American president and our peace operators on the ground would respond when challenged by an insurgency that evoked the Vietnam Syndrome. The American president needed to hold onto the rope when it burned, which Bush did. The US forces in Iraq needed to prove to the watching world that when the OIF occupation lost the initiative to the Saddamist insurgency's vicious attacks on the Iraqi people like Saddam's genocidal rule of Iraq, the United States would respond to the setback by standing fast, staying resolute politically, and adjusting competitively on the ground to beat the Saddamist insurgency and thereby uphold the "US policy in Iraq". Which our soldiers did.
I reiterate, the legislative-executive process in the 1990 to 2011 Iraq intervention prior to President Obama's radical deviation is the contemporary real precedent and gold standard for the Constitutional rule of law for war that you and the Forward Party are advocating. To apply a computer analogy, the pre-Obama Presidents' and Congress's conscientious leadership on Iraq is the 'previous restore point' needed to 'revert' the American 'system' to a healthy 'state'. But as long as Forward's advocacy omits the concrete substantiation of the UNSCR 678 per Public Law 102-190 enforcement precedent, your advocacy will carry no more force than an insubstantial if idealistic theory.
Therefore, I recommend that on the Iran issue, the Forward Party should hold President Trump and Congress accountable to the real gold standard of Iraq. That requires curing the Iraq Syndrome at the premise level by clarifying Operation Iraqi Freedom's actual law-and-fact justification and relitigating the Iraq Syndrome's false narrative to the public. This would substantially empower the Forward Party's mission.
Again, the essential task to cure America of the Iraq Syndrome is incumbent on the Forward Party. There is no one else to do it. This is why the Forward Party exists.
I invite your critical feedback. If you have questions about my work, please ask.
Also see The Constitutional rule of law for war was skirted by President Clinton, reinforced by President Bush, and degraded by President Obama and The international law way to solve rogue actors like Maduro without enabling China is the Gulf War ceasefire formula.
No comments:
Post a Comment