Professor Allen didn't respond to my e-mail, so I don't know whether he's read it.
from: [Eric LC]
to: [Jonathan Allen], [NBC's From the Politics Desk]
date: Apr 2, 2026, 2:46 PM
subject: The apt Iraq comparison for the Iran intervention is the Gulf War ceasefire enforcement, not Desert Storm
To Jonathan Allen and NBC's From the Politics Desk,
I clarify and relitigate the Iraq issue at Operation Iraqi Freedom FAQ using the law and facts that define the Iraq issue.
I am writing to you in response to your 26MAR26 From the Politics Desk article, Why Trump needs Congress on Iran in more ways than one, to refine your Iraq "comparison point" for the Iran intervention.
Allen:
The Pentagon wants a $200 billion emergency spending bill for the war, a sum greater than any individual spending measure for the simultaneous conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Trump needs Congress to appropriate that money.
... There’s a clear comparison point: In the fall of 1990, most Americans did not want the U.S. to intervene and drive Iraq out of Kuwait. According to a Gallup poll from November of that year, 37% of Americans backed a war, with 51% opposed.
So President George H.W. Bush and his aides embarked on a public relations campaign that included efforts to convince members of Congress, the public and U.S. allies that it was the right thing to do. Two weeks later, public opinion flipped: 53% supported going to war, with 40% opposed.
That was before Bush persuaded Congress, in January 1991, to vote to authorize him to go to war.
... There’s a clear comparison point: In the fall of 1990, most Americans did not want the U.S. to intervene and drive Iraq out of Kuwait. According to a Gallup poll from November of that year, 37% of Americans backed a war, with 51% opposed.
So President George H.W. Bush and his aides embarked on a public relations campaign that included efforts to convince members of Congress, the public and U.S. allies that it was the right thing to do. Two weeks later, public opinion flipped: 53% supported going to war, with 40% opposed.
That was before Bush persuaded Congress, in January 1991, to vote to authorize him to go to war.
On the Iran issue, you should hold President Trump and Congress accountable to the gold standard of Iraq, and you are broadly correct that the 1990 to 2011 Iraq intervention pursuant to UNSCR 678 is the "clear comparison point" for the Iran intervention. However, while your focus on the lead-up to Operation Desert Storm from "fall of 1990" to "January 1991" does not miss the mark entirely, you only grazed the target. The apt "comparison point" and gold standard for your thesis is the legislative-executive record of the Gulf War ceasefire enforcement that followed Desert Storm and led up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, not the lead-up to Desert Storm.
As a fact pattern, President Trump's justification for the Iran intervention, based on Iran's transgressions on weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, and human rights, mismatches the proximate justification for Operation Desert Storm, based on Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
President Trump's justification for the Iran intervention closer matches Presidents HW Bush, Clinton, and Bush's and Congress's justification for the military enforcement of the Gulf War ceasefire "governing standard of Iraqi compliance" (UNSCR 1441) pursuant to UNSCR 678 per Public Law 102-190 that followed Operation Desert Storm, which was purpose-designed for "the need to be assured of Iraq's peaceful intentions in the light of its unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait" (UNSCR 687), in particular regarding WMD (UNSCR 687), terrorism (UNSCR 687) and aggression (UNSCR 949), and human rights (UNSCR 688).
For Operation Iraqi Freedom, which carried forward from Operation Desert Fox, the standard that triggered the military action was "full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions" (UNSCR 1441) in accordance with the Congressional mandate to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" (Public Law 107-243). As such, casus belli was Iraq's "continued violations of its obligations" (UNSCR 1441) on WMD, terrorism and aggression, and human rights, which are confirmed across the board as "the Iraqis never intended to meet the spirit of the UNSC’s resolutions" (Iraq Survey Group) in Iraq's "final opportunity to comply" (UNSCR 1441).
Further relevant to your thesis, following the "January 1991...vote to authorize him [President HW Bush] to go to war", Congress continued working with the HW Bush, Clinton, and Bush administrations on the Gulf War ceasefire enforcement with multiple resolutions that deepened Congress's commitment to the "use of all necessary means" (Public Law 102-190), including military action and Iraqi regime change, "to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235).
Therefore, the expansive Congressional support for military action to enforce Iraq's mandated compliance with the Gulf War ceasefire WMD, terrorism and aggression, and human rights mandates after Operation Desert Storm that led up to Operation Iraqi Freedom is the apt and "clear comparison point" for President Trump's Iran intervention, based on Iran's transgressions on weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, and human rights, as opposed to the lead-up to Desert Storm.
Notably for "the simultaneous conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq", President Bush worked closely with Congress despite that he inherited sufficient Congressional support for both interventions from President Clinton's administration-long struggle with the worsening al Qaeda and Saddam problems. In and of themselves, the post-9/11 war authorizations were redundant with standing Congressional mandates on counterterrorism and Iraq. But President Bush's strictly unnecessary cooperation with Congress set an essential modern precedent by which the President reintegrated the legislative-executive process for war that matches your thesis. I expound on the Constitutional rule of law for war in that context at The Constitutional rule of law for war was skirted by President Clinton, reinforced by President Bush, and degraded by President Obama and The Forward Party should reconceive the Iran issue with the premise that we were right on Iraq, which is the truth. Excerpts:
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.
... Congress often interfered with Bush’s foreign affairs to detrimental effect, but also provided the resources when the needs of the mission exceeded the resources available to the US President.
... 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.
---------------
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.
... Congress often interfered with Bush’s foreign affairs to detrimental effect, but also provided the resources when the needs of the mission exceeded the resources available to the US President.
... 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.
---------------
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.
Effectively holding President Trump and Congress accountable to the gold standard of Iraq requires you to cure the specious and degenerative Iraq Syndrome at the premise level, such as the misguiding "forever war" talking point, which necessitates relitigating the Iraq Syndrome's false narrative,—which I demonstrate here with the Chilcot report and here with Hal Brands's essay in Hand-off.
I invite your critical feedback. If you have questions about my work, please ask.
Related: The Constitutional rule of law for war was skirted by President Clinton, reinforced by President Bush, and degraded by President Obama and The Forward Party should reconceive the Iran issue with the premise that we were right on Iraq, which is the truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment