There has been much talk of how Hillary Clinton's recent support of the Webb amendment somehow shows that she has not given the Bush administration a way to attack Iran with her senate vote declaring the Qods force a terrorist organization. A careful understanding of both of these pieces of legislation is key to understanding the practical effects both have on the President and his ability to execute tactical strikes against the Iranian military.

First and Foremost, it must be made clear that the Qods force is not a terrorist organization, and more importantly classifying them as one is not strategic for US interests.

The stated purpose of the Qods Force is to help Islamic revolutions in foreign nations. It began during the Iran-Iraq war as a kind of black ops force that only answered to the Supreme Leader of Iran (a basic understanding of the complicated power divisions within the Iranian Democracy is helpful here). Anyhow it is clear that Iran has an interest in taking charge in the inevitable power vacuum which will arise in Iraq. If anything they are a military organization which is fighting a foreign invading power. Of course the US government will liken the Qods force to Hezbollah, an organization which can be considered terrorists in some respects and legitimate government in others. The reality is that Hezbollah started as a guerrilla force fighting the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. This is slightly tangential, but the point is that many of those who are classified as terrorist organizations are done so only because they fight the US government or US military (a fact which in fact proves them NOT to be terrorists, but moving on.)

The Kyl-Lieberman amendment is very dangerous and faulty for a number o reasons.

1. It gives Bush the authority to tactically strike a many targets within the Iranian Military.

2. The Iranian military is just that, a formal wing of the Iranian government. Who they give money and resources to is secondary to the fact that they serve the leadership in Iran and are legitimate (in the weberian sense) actors.

3. The Iranian government may very well be funding insurgents, however anti-colonial rebellion is a different kind of violence than that of Al-Quada. The big difference I see is that those who attack the US military (or the sunnis) are taking strategic action in order to accomplish political goals, as opposed to Al-Quada who has no strategic goals and just wants to cause fear and chaos in american society. Osama didnt think that 911 would hurt the military strength of our government, he knew it would hurt our moral strength.

4. This helps Iran in a number of ways. First and foremost it 100% proves the idea that America thinks all Muslims who fight us are terrorists to be correct. This is a huge boost for A-jad who can now run the next time around on being the only guy who can protect iran from American aggression. Additionally it buys into the god damn bush talking point that all anti-colonial insurgents in Iraq are terrorists. I still cannot understand how people think that those who oppose an invader are terrorists. (if this is true than I will become a terrorist as soon as canada invades).

5. it kills our credibility on fighting the very real threat that Al-Quada poses. How many times can we claim to attack a nation in the middle east because of terrorism before the excuse is bunk?

On to the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment. The implications for President Bush and foreign policy are quite simple. It cites the testimony of Patraeus and Crocker in which they say they have seen hard evidence (interrogations, computer files, etc.) which show that there has been Iranian funding of shi'i militias. It recommends that the President (I believe it is the Secretary of State officially) to list the Qods force as a foreign terrorist organization and authorizes all political, economic, and military actions needed to dismantle them. It gives the President the ability to use all the force of the Patriot act and the War on Terror to persecute these fighters (and presumably any other target in Iran which can be linked to the Qods force.)

The point I am trying to get to here has to do with the empty and possibly unconstitutional Webb amendment. The amendment itself is quite short, the first section basically says to funds can be appropriated to fight a unilateral war with Iraq. The second section is one that I would like to investigate in detail, and it is a list of exceptions, one that clearly still allows massive amounts of argumentative room for the Bush administration.

the exceptions are as follows:

           (1) Military operations or activities to directly repel an attack launched from within the territory of Iran.

           (2) Military operations or activities to directly thwart an imminent attack to be launched from within the territory of Iran.

           (3) Military operations or activities in hot pursuit of forces engaged outside the territory of Iran who thereafter enter into Iran.

           (4) Military operations or activities connected with the intelligence or intelligence-related activities of the United States Government.

It is clear that from the Patraeus testimony alone the Webb amendment leaves open justification for strategic strikes within Iran. All that has to be proven is that Iran is launching strikes against any target in Iraq and the criteria for military action has been met. The first three reasons are all about the same thing, which is chasing any Iranian funds and military presence back into the Iranian territory. The last is also significant because it gives a black check to the CIA/NSA to fight terrorism in any kind of manner relating to intelligence gathering.
I worry that we as a citizenry are being fooled by superficial understandings of foreign policy and War. My point is that the Webb amendment does nothing except stop a full scale invasion of Iran, an action that we couldnt physically do without a draft anyway. It distracts us from the real possible problem, surgical strikes.

On a level that has nothing to do with Iran, the Webb amendment is troublesome. Remember a time when congress took its constitutional authority to declare war seriously? I don't, but that because they haven't declared war in my lifetime. The slow erosion of congressional power in the interest of the Unitary executive must stop, and weak language like this doesnt help.-

" (b), the President shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the determination, including a justification for the determination."

NOTE: This is my first diary and I would appreciate any kind of advice, about both substance and using this damn contraption we call Mydd. Also, I dont mean to single out hillary, but it seems that her votes have been the source of discussion.