In These Times's The ITT List was recently named one of the top 5 campaign blogs for its coverage of the Democratic National Convention.
ZoomZoom InZoom OutPrintDiscuss
News > March 20, 2008

Vermont Argues Iraq War is ‘Mission Expired’

By Terry J. Allen

Vermont legislators are demanding that all of its National Guard troops be sent home from Iraq.

While Congress runs out the clock on President Bush’s Iraq War, some Vermont legislators hope to spark a state-by-state movement to quickly withdraw National Guard troops and stanch the flow of blood and treasure.

On Jan. 30, state House members, soon followed by state senators, introduced legislation that called on Vermont’s Republican Gov. Jim Douglas to take “all necessary steps” to bring home, as quickly as possible, all members of the Vermont National Guard serving in Iraq.

Rather than arguing whether launching the war was legal or even just, supporters of the bill tacitly concede that Congress’ 2002 Authorization to Use Military Force gave Bush the authority to invade Iraq based on two—and only two—criteria: “(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”

But today, Saddam Hussein and the specter of weapons of mass destruction are both dead; there is no national security threat; and the U.N. resolutions are no longer relevant, the bill’s supporters say.

“That very specific mission does not exist today,” says state Rep. Michael Fisher (D-Lincoln), who introduced the House bill. And when the mission expired, so too did any legal or constitutional basis for the war or the involvement of the Vermont National Guard, the bill states.

“The president no longer has the authorization to command our Vermont National Guard units,” says Fisher.

“It’s bait and switch,” says constitutional legal scholar Peter Teachout, about the shifting mission rationales. “If they want troops there until the last suicide bomber has blown himself to kingdom come, they need to be specific.”

If the Democratic-controlled Vermont legislature passes the bill, the governor would have to sign it. The legislation would then have to survive a court challenge. A veto seems likely as Gov. Douglas is a supporter of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). As for a lawsuit, “there is no court in the country that would issue an order requiring withdrawal of troops mid-deployment,” says Teachout.

But there are legal precedents, albeit unsuccessful ones, for governors resisting orders to deploy their state’s Guard troops. In 1986, then-Gov. Madeleine Kunin joined a five-state effort to stop the Reagan administration from sending Vermont’s Army National Guard to Honduras. In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Perpich v. Department of Defense that governors cannot block a call-up of the National Guard for service overseas. That precedent was limited because, unlike the current challenge, it did not rest on the illegality of the war, some Vermont Democrats argue.

Despite its slim prospects, Fisher insists the bill is more than symbolic: “It may cause a ripple that develops into a larger wave that helps clarify that states do have a role in controlling their National Guard troops, especially when a war effort is illegal.”

“If other states join in, it might light a fire under Congress,” says Teachout.

Already, legislators in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Wisconsin are exploring ways to stoke the flame.

While both sides talk mainly about lives and national security, money circles the Vermont debate. State Rep. Patricia O’Donnell (R-Vernon) points out that if Vermont withdrew the Guards, Washington might withdraw the $3 million it contributes to maintaining Vermont’s units.

Democrats counter that states are already bearing much of the burden of budgets cuts necessitated by the pricey occupation. At a January press conference, House Speaker Gaye Symington (D-Jericho) said the war in Iraq has had a heavy impact on Vermont and has led to financial cuts in Medicaid and other areas.

The cost also comes in blood. Vermont has one of the highest per capita death rates in Iraq.

The state has tried various strategies to oppose the Iraq War. In February 2007, the legislature approved a non-binding resolution to bring home all the troops. And on March 4, citizens at a Brattleboro, Vt., town meeting passed a resolution calling for its local police to arrest and indict Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for war crimes. The town of Marlboro, Vt., passed a similar measure.

With Vermont still the only state Bush has never visited, it is unlikely either town will see a presidential perp walk.

Terry J. Allen, an In These Times senior editor, has written the magazine's monthly investigative health and science column since 2005.

More information about Terry J. Allen

  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Reader Comments

    “...there is no national security threat”

    Wasn’t that the conventional wisdom pre-9/11?

    9/11 Ñ That was when the World Trade Center was destroyed and several thousand people of various countries died.

    It is hard to tell who is dumber these days Ñ the ones who got us into this mess or those who believe pulling out of Iraq will end the war.

    We are there like it or not.

    To complain about the cost in dollars ignores the cost so far in NYC and the potential cost of another such attack.

    If anything the threat is greater now than pre-2001. Our borders are still not secure. The airport hassle gives an illusion that we have done something, but baggage is loaded uninspected by people from who knows where. Our food, toys, prescription drugs are less than 1% inspected Ñ no threat?

    To pull out without a secure government and borders in Iraq would be a massive boost to the radical Moslems. While each person killed is to be mourned, those who willing gave their youth, their incomes and even their lives are about one fourth tthe number killed each year on our streets and highways.

    The allied losses in WW2 (a shorter war) were over 400,000. If we had the attitude expressed in this article we would not be able to print such outrageous blather.

    Wake up!

    Posted by whattheheck on Mar 22, 2008 at 2:35 PM

    “So it’s worth asking why Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton remain so unwilling to alter their outdated and dogmatic views about the war. Both issued statements Monday denouncing Mr. Gates’s statement and the proposed pause in withdrawals; both stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that the changed situation in Iraq requires a rethinking of their plans for the rapid withdrawal of all U.S. combat troops. As Mr. Gates has recognized, to mechanically yank U.S. forces from Iraq according to a timetable inspired by American domestic politics, just when the troops appear to be succeeding, would be foolhardy as well as dangerous.”

    So says the Washington Post, at least.

    4000 killed in Iraq over 5 years, compared with ~ 42,000 x 5 = 210,000 highway deaths in 5 years.  The latter being senseless and wholly without purpose, and the former being the cost of initiating a long overdue change in the middle east mindset, and the removal of a murderous, torturous dictator intent on fomenting terror and resuming WMD activities ASAP.

    And if one actually reads the recent Pentagon report on Saddam’s links to Islamic terrorism and extremism, including yes, al Qaeda, that alone is cause to have taken action in Iraq.

    Let’s get on board with the effort, people, instead of undermining it, especially at this hopeful yet fragile moment in time.

    Posted by Natalie on Mar 24, 2008 at 4:53 AM

    As Natalie pointed out the Saddam connection is clear. The following URL summary gives the latest Pentagon report with info. from over 600,000 captured documents.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120631495290958169.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ _and_outlooks

    Maybe we could just offer them Vermont. 

    Naw, they probably believe maple syrup is another decadent U.S. item.

    I’ll bet there are still some Vermonters from the “Greatest Generation” who understand that no post 9/11 attacks here doesn’t mean the threat is gone. (And more than a few terrorists who would love to see troops be withdrawn prematurely.)

    Posted by whattheheck on Mar 24, 2008 at 1:11 PM

    The willful mendacity of our dependably partisan media has certainly not served our nation well these past 6 years.  Each and every opportunity to minimize threats and distort the true picture has been taken with palpable glee.

    “NO IRAQ-QAEDA TIE”, screamed the big bold headlines upon the release of the 9/11 commission report, in a dishonest attempt to hide the fact that there were ties, just not official, “operational” ones.  As if that would have been the kind that Saddam or Al Qaeda would have sought to forge.  No matter, the public has been successfully indoctrinated into the belief that there were no ties whatsoever.  And the dumb-ass Bush just lets it go.

    Now to find out that the ties were indeed substantial and worthy of being disrupted. 

    Abu Ghraib front-paged for the world day after day, week after week, month after month.  An incident not representative of our military as a whole, and one already having been corrected and under investigation.  But no matter.  The entire Arab world, along with large swaths of our own population, have been indoctrinated into believing our entire military is nothing but a bunch of torturous perverts.

    Not to mention all the formerly secret surveillance tools compromised by the media under the guise of “shining the light”.

    God help us if we ever really do have to fight a war again for our very survival.  Let’s just hope a Democrat’s in office, like the last time.

    Thanks WTH, for that WSJ article.

    And here’s mine again hopefully in a more clickable form this time.

    Posted by Natalie on Mar 24, 2008 at 2:32 PM

    Only $3 million dollars from DC for Vermont’s national guard?

    Is it true that using National Guardsmen is 70% cheaper for the administration than using regular army?

    It sounds like Bush & Cheney are getting a lot of Vermont boys’ blood at bargain basement rates and to no good purpose!

    4,000 dead?  That’s more than 9/11 and they don’t need to bother looking for us!

    How about the Iraqi dead?  Somewhere between 80,000 and 300,000 dead?  Maybe even a million?  How many of those were Iraqi army?  Not that many?  Civilians?  Women?  Children?

    That doesn’t even begin to count the numbers of widows and orphans in a country where the internal services are still a shambles!

    There’s no way to count the number of enemies that we now have that we never would have had otherwise, but I would wager that it’s the biggest number of all!  That does a lot for “Homeland Security”, doesn’t it?

    Yeah, I would say that Vermont has the right idea!

    >^.K!

    Posted by Poeticat on Mar 24, 2008 at 5:35 PM

  • extended discussion >>>Continued...

    Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 9 posts.

Join Here
Member Login

Forgot password?

Article Appeared in this Issue

Full contents
Past issues

Also by Terry J. Allen
Popular Discussions