A Lasting Mark on Foreign Policy

Throughout most of U.S. history, Congress has usually played a passive role in shaping the nation's foreign policy. As a rule, the executive branch initiates, and Congress then makes minor adjustments through its powers of oversight, control over the budget, and authority to ratify treaties and confirm high-level diplomats.

When Congress has left a lasting mark on foreign policy, it has usually been in the role of spoiler. After World War I, the Senate rejected U.S. participation in the League of Nations and lawmakers embraced isolationism. During the Vietnam War, Congress eventually used its power of the purse to mandate the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Today, however, with U.S. troops mired in Iraq and the Bush administration still convinced that force is a more effective tool of statecraft than diplomacy, it is not enough for Congress to play only a restraining role in shaping U.S. foreign policy. Congressional lawmakers must step into the breach to restore balance and purpose to a foreign policy that has gone so woefully off course.

To be sure, Congress would be taking extraordinary steps if it took on a decidedly activist role in diplomacy. But the emergency in Iraq, the Bush administration's paralytic response, and the public clamor for a change of course require extraordinary intervention by the country's representative institutions. A strategic correction cannot be put off until the arrival of a new president in January 2009.

The Bush administration has not been completely blind to the failures of the blustery unilateralism of its first term. After reelection, Bush found the country not only stuck in Iraq but also isolated globally. During its second term, the administration has reached out to Europe and made discernible progress in repairing ties across the Atlantic. Washington negotiated the shut-down of North Korea's nuclear program. And albeit begrudgingly, U.S. officials have even initiated dialogue with the leader of the axis of evil: Iran.

Though welcome steps, these tactical adjustments have done nothing to redress the debacle in Iraq. Indeed, the Bush administration continues to labor under the illusion that brute force will carry the day. The White House insists that the "surge" will pacify Iraq and enable a unitary government to prevail over sectarian divisions. Dream on.

It has also proposed the sale of a massive arms package to the states of the Persian Gulf, a move allegedly intended to enlist their help in stabilizing Iraq and containing Iran. But without a diplomatic strategy to achieve these ends, the transfer of hardware does little to advance U.S. interests. When Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates visited the Gulf a few weeks ago, they made no progress in forging a regional compact that could help repair Iraq or bring Iran to heel.

With the executive branch abdicating its responsibility to conduct diplomacy, what can Congress do to fill the gap? For starters, it can get in the game.

Senators and House members often go abroad, meeting foreign leaders, attending parliamentary assemblies, and engaging in fact-finding missions. They may not have the constitutional authority to conduct diplomacy. But with the Bush administration having dropped the ball, they have the right -- indeed, the obligation -- to sustain channels of communication with allies and adversaries alike.

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did just that in Syria last spring, she was pilloried for overstepping her bounds. But Republican as well as Democratic members of Congress have often called on Damascus -- and should continue to do so. Such visits should aim to keep the lines of communication open; they cannot substitute for formal diplomacy. But this informal dialogue is vital at a time when the clock is running out on a White House that long ago squandered its credibility abroad.

The Democratic-controlled Congress should also alter its strategy for influencing the administration's handling of the war in Iraq. The Democrats do not have the numbers to force Bush's hand. With too few Republicans defecting from the White House, the Democrats' efforts to set a deadline for withdrawal cannot withstand a presidential veto.

Instead of introducing bills calling for U.S. forces to quit Iraq, Democrats should back a plan that couples partial withdrawal with the maintenance in Iraq of a sizable residual presence. American forces would disengage from Iraq's civil war and most units would return home. But at least three brigade combat teams -- about 30,000 troops -- would remain to fight Al-Qaida in Iraq, prevent regional spillover, and contain the spread of sectarian violence.

Should the Democrats switch to this approach, many Republicans would join them. Especially Republicans up for reelection in 2008 would welcome an alternative to backing Bush's futile surge. For the Democrats, this move would constitute not just good politics, but good policy. With Iraq coming apart at the seams, the United States cannot afford to walk away and risk a wider regional conflagration.

Finally, the Democrats can play a more influential role in guiding U.S. statecraft by playing political hardball. As Peter Trubowitz and I wrote in the International Herald Tribune on July 30, 2007, Democrats can offer logrolls that the White House will find hard to refuse.

For example, Democrats could announce a rolling moratorium on congressional investigation into the White House's conduct of the war. A full accounting will be needed, but now is not the time. In return, the White House could agree to close Guantánamo. The prison remains an international symbol of the excesses of the Bush presidency, and Democrats have been clamoring to shut it down. The willingness of Republicans to do so will not only help repair the partisan divide but also begin the process of restoring America's damaged credibility abroad.

Democrats should also take up President Bush's offer, made during this year's State of the Union, to set up a bipartisan congressional committee to work with the White House in overseeing the Iraq war. The committee should contain equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats. In return, Cabinet-level officials should meet with the committee weekly. This dialogue would not only restore trust between the executive and the legislature, but also restore balance and credibility to U.S. diplomacy.

President Bush is the commander in chief until the next inauguration day. But in the interim, Congress must use all the powers at its disposal to help right the ship of state.

Charles A. Kupchan is Professor of International Affairs at Georgetown University, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Henry A. Kissinger Scholar at the Library of Congress.

Comments

[wcs55]

This is a complex issue. I just completed "Hubris" by Michael Isikoff and am reading "Fiasco" by Thomas Ricks. They spell out in all unflatering detail how these neocons led us into the Iraq war. Led by Paul Wolfowitz, Cheney, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Steven Hadley, etc...they did not care what the actual intelligence was. They manipulated and with Karl Rove's help, intimidated the Congress to vote for the war authorization. Any and I mean any question about the war plan, WMD's, after Saddam fell, was answered with cries of "Unpatriotic" and "defeatist." Everybody just played into their hands. They knew exactly what they were doing. I just hope I live long enough to see a reversal of what they've done to our once beautiful and wonderful country.

[hoopoe]

in case no one has noticed, there is already a bipartisan consensus: the status quo. the democrats may talk a good game and claim they want to end the madness, but this is precisely what the military-industrial-congressional complex has had in mind all along, both democrats and republicans. they have no desire to stabilize iraq or the region, but to keep it in continual conflict as part of the perpetual and profitable 'war on terror,' allowing them to maintain a permanent imperial presence under brute force in the region and a establish a launching pad for further conquest.

so, sure, let's give them exactly what they want. let's validate this policy. let's continue to feed the war profiteers. let's continue to stoke sectarian conflagrations and incite civil wars between rival political factions around the region. let's allow the racial/religious scapegoating to escalate. let's allow them to sacrifice more of our civil liberties on the altar of fear. and most of all, let's shred the constitution, u.n. charter, international treaties, etc. and take all responsibility and accountability "off the table."

the precedents we set today are the blueprint for the downfall of everything we thought this country stood for. it's a betrayal of everything our troops believe they are dying for. every acquiescence is a justification and endorsement of this brutal, illegal and catastrophic policy and, frankly, i'm tired of being lied to by my elected representatives about their real intentions. this kind of plan allows them to do just that.

this is just the kind of twisted political maneuvering that has got us where we are today; what makes anyone think it will get us out? it only serves to fool us into believing change and progress are happening when they are simply repackaging the situation and giving it a new sales pitch. i'm not buying.

[NABNYC]

I don't think Congress needs to bolster their credentials by becoming even more involved in these wars. They've got blood all over their hands. Having them rip out their pom-poms to cheer on Bush in keeping U.S. troops in Iraq forever seems like a bizarre suggestion.

Does anyone really think the problems in Iraq have something to do with Congress not being involved? They voted to start this war. They voted to send the U.S. military to attack and occupy a country that had never attacked or threatened us. And they vote again and again to fund the war, and to fund creation of the U.S. Imperial Empire palace/base that is being constructed in Iraq. They vote to continue keeping the military there until Iraq signs the oil law saying that Congress's corporate sponsors can steal all of Iraq's oil.

I've got a better idea. Why doesn't Congress spend some time reading our Constitution. They all preach every day about how religious they are, so maybe they should go back and look at their religious or ethical background. See anything that says it's okay for them to murder other people to steal their oil? In fact, go back and read about Agamemnon. Not everyone is a fan of war.

We're not the Roman Empire, but Congress and Bush seem to think we are. We are a nation of hard working and decent men and women who want to raise their kids, have safe neighborhoods, eat decent food, and go to the movies.

Everybody in D.C. needs to take off their togas and start acting like real people. End this war now. Stop the murder. Stop the killing.

[tomcat27834]

"you will look lovely wearing a burqa" ....don't ya get a kick out of those self-indulged neocon talkin' pts? THEY ARE A HOOT !!! Its all about FEAR.....FEAR RULES...boo!

[tomcat27834]

GWBush was convinced by (Cheney and the neocons) that the U.S. had to establish permament military installations in the heart of the arab world regardless of the consequences. The illegal occupation and rush to war in Iraq was to establish "US" as liberators to a brutal dictator. Hence, democracy would florish and GWBush & Cheney would go down in history as world saviors. However, a dillusional BUSH, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz (and the cast of characters) FORCED (lies and fear) their "experiment" on our great nation. It would have been cheaper to just GIVE Iraq part of Iran.......lets be honest, that is what BUSH'S MISGUIDED POLICY will result in. Iraq is the regional powerplay in the area as a result of GWBUSH policy...our reputation and national security is at risk...thanks George! IMPEACHMENT anyone ????

[argeec]

The United States should have no troops in Iraq unless they are part of a UN peacekeeping force.
Anyone who accepts an appointment to a position named after Henry Kissinger has zero credibility in my view.

[TruthSlayer]

Actually we should get out of the corrupt and badly ran United Nations and create a United Nations made up of only free nations.

[Marvelle]

Brilliant Truthslayer.
Let's take that to its logical extension and create a "united nations" only of white, western, wealthy, and armed-to-the-teeth nations hell-bent on starting wars to fund their corporate pay-masters!!
I'm with you on this. To hell with the poor brown people -- get your own club!!

[TJTelecaster]

Wait next Cheney will claim Congress has no right of oversight, in Foreign Policy matters..or Domestic for that matter..!

"It's all for the good of The Syndicate Yossarin..!"

[GKJames]

Professor Kupchan's prescriptions sound sensible enough, but hardly revolutionary. There must be some other reason, then, why Congress continues to hesitate to uphold its Constitutional separation-of-powers obligations with any measure of vigor. Given that its members are, if nothing else, masters of sniffing the political winds, it's hard to escape the conclusion that it is the American public that remains reasonably satisfied with the (deadly and expensive) state of affairs. Why that's so is a different, more portentious, topic entirely, of course.

[WIpatriot]

Rare is it that I can agree with any CFR member's discourse. But I agree with the last paragraph. Indeed, Bush is the commander guy for the next year-and-a-half unless Congress DOES use its constitutional power to IMPEACH him and the horse he rode in on, Cheney.

[realpolitic]

Many Bush efforts fail because there is no overarching strategy. For example, the administration backed Fatah over Hamas in the elections in the Palestinian territories, but hadn't met with the leader of Fatah to boost his standing and hadn't backed a peace process between Israel and the Palestanians. Of course, the harder line Hamas won the election grandly.
Another point is that after the Bush shredding of the constitution we have to restore checks and balances to government. Congress must regain its authority and be an effective check on the executive. How, is a question for another day.
It is important as well for Congress to restore purpose and even-handedness to foreign policy, but the Constitution seems to put most authority in this regard in the executive. Of course, we can't ask Dick Cheney because, as we all know, the vice-president's office is not within the executive branch of government.

[johnuw93]

No doubt, Congress should be taking a stronger hand in US foreign policy. It is not without precedent. But it is not at all clear why Congress must do so by forwarding a different plan for permanent occupation than Bush's. If Congress is to take such a forceful role, it has to be to bring about complete withdrawal. Following Kupchan's advice would mean that Congress would be battling the President over tactics, not purposes. That is not a fight Congress should engage, as the stakes are not commensurate with the constitutional struggle that would ensue.

As for the rest, Kupchan's article reads rather like a baseball fan's forum posting on what trades the team should make. IOW, harmless speculation that will have no effect on events.

[LaC]

I thought I had heard of you Kupchan and then the CFR brought it all home as to why you are so blessed in ignorance.
Georgetown should be embarrassed at what you wrote above and the Rockefellers should demand a refund.

Apparently, they do not have media in Georgetown as you missed that Bush actually brought Iraq to the UN after Saddam had violated time and again mandates the UN proposed. War was chosen on that front and Afghanistan as the thugs in charge were not open to negotiations.
North Korea worked on diplomacy as that issue was in regional interests. Your not being aware of this simplest of facts mandates the conclusion you are a fool or a liar.

Ms. Pelosi was not castigated for going to terrorist Syria, but for when she got there she was saying Olmert was saying Olmert never said.
That kind of thing causes wars and is why Congress is best napping at home and not heard overseas.

You might check Mr. Kup this ship of state being right under President Bush, but note it is your CFR boss who is raping the US economy owning the Federal Reserve, laundering Saddam's oil money in bribes and all of those Castro dope funds out of latin America.
You might be able to bluff your way at cocktail parties and here, but how you sleep at night knowing your backing comes from economic rape, bribes and dope traffic in the narco banking cartels is evidence ignorance is bliss as much as the lack of facts in your blog.

[BuckBurris]

The CFR is not the most trustworthy of guides. Like a number of such groups, it has its own agenda which is not necessarily what is best or what is even best for US.

[outnow]

Charles,

If Native Americans had IEDs those wagons would have turned around. Taking scalps is one thing but when there is a new weapon it is different. Nobel realized this fact.

Nukes don't cut it in bar room fighting.

Regarding Iraq, Cheney acknowledge this fact in 1991 in the Soref Symposium speech on April 29, 1991. "Did we go far enough to destroy Saddam Husein's offensive capabilities, asked Cheney (to himself). "What our coalition partners wanted to know, more than anything else, was that we were in fact determined to stay the course (in getting Saddam out of Kuwait)...."

Notice the "stay the course language."

What changed Cheney's mind?

[anastasiabeaverhousen]

Congress is too busy dealing with the criminal legacy of the 109th Congress and the shrub administration.

There's no way they can do the people's business AND deal with the crimes that have been committed and subsequently hidden by these republicons. Let alone, with less than 60 votes.

Proactively deal with Iran? They were our friends after September 11th, but that was soon squandered, along with almost every other civilized nation on this planet - FOR POLITICAL GAIN and for oil rights.

We need a fourth branch of government (read: a cadre of special prosecutors) that can deal with no bid contracts and the resulting deferred compensation from Halliburton for Cheney, wiretapping with no warrants, the amero, Abramoff etal., DeLay, the crooked Alaska senator and his house, the move toward fascism in this country, the removal of habeas corpus, the politicization of the Judicial Branch, the DC madam's client list, the stacking of the Supreme Court with nut jobs, the relationship between the shrubs and the Saudis, the lies that got us into Iraq in the first place, the treason that manifested itself in the outing of a COVERT CIA agent, the evil that is Karl Rove, etc etc etc.

[BuckBurris]

The smartest thing the B-C administration has done is to keep a multiplicity of crimes and scandals going so that weak minded Americans can't get any single one in focus. Now if they were reasonably decent except for say, a blow job that the media could focus on, it might be different.

[scooperss]

As long as people think money/power is the best thing in the world it won't matter how many branches of government there are.
All of the examples that you put forth involve money and/or power. How long would it be before a fourth, fifth, sixth....... would be corrupted like the first, second and third?

[WmC]

Kupchan's proposals presuppose that: A) One can reason with Bush/Cheney, and B)They can be trusted keep their word. I know of no evidence for either.

[Sundialsvc4]

It is rather disgusting to me that you calmly say "the axis of evil: Iran."

Your bias flows putridly from there. If you want to write a good propaganda piece, it does take a good bit more work than this.

Now, go ahead and click the "disapprove" button. No one will ever see this post. But... you did, and that is enough.

[TruthSlayer]

Iran is a Terrorist Sponsoring State and has been since the Iranian Moron who calls himself "Ayatollah Ali Khamenei" took power. The bottom line is Iran is ran by Religious Shiite lunatics like most Middle East countries.