Security - What's New - Archive

WomenMatter will continuously post updates on all this and other issues as we monitor the continuing philosophical and practical debates nationwide. Please check back often for updates. Past updates are available for reference on the Security Archives page.

Representative government in a time of war: is there room for the people in the debate over foreign policy?

December 2005 marks an unusual moment in political history in which American citizens were provided with a chance to see how foreign policy is shaped and reminded of our own responsibility as citizens to participate in the process. Historically, politicians have been hesitant to inform the public about foreign policy decisions because of the need to protect national security and the fact that most of us do not already have the specialized knowledge required to understand how and why the decisions are made.

During times of war, when the president assumes the role of commander-in chief as well as political leader, both citizens and legislators hesitate to criticize the administration for fear of appearing unpatriotic - and the public debate over war policy can be stifled.

"A flawed policy wrapped in an illusion": Murtha opens up the public debate on Iraq

On November 17th, 2005, Congressman John P. Murtha (D-PA) stunned his colleagues and the American public by delivering a highly publicized speech in which he called the war in Iraq a "a flawed policy wrapped in an illusion," and called for an immediate deployment of troops from Iraq to the countries surrounding it. Murtha’s speech was significant because he set forth a specific plan - "to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis" and circle the country with troops. He invited his colleagues in Congress and the American public to participate in the debate by providing us with specific information about the situation in Iraq.

Murtha’s words had credibility because he is a highly decorated Vietnam veteran known for his patriotism and support of the military-- his speech opened up the public debate in a way that had not been possible before.

"Total Victory": The President takes national strategy to the public

By appealing to the public and Congress and informing us about the situation is Iraq, Congressman Murtha threatened the President’s credibility as both commander-in-chief and political leader of the nation. As commander-in-chief, the President is not obligated to inform the public about war policy, but on November 30, 2005 President Bush responded to Murtha’s speech by explaining and clarifying the situation and his policies in Iraq and outlining his strategy for the future. In particular, he described to the public that ‘insurgents,’ a term we hear every day in the news, in fact refers to three separate groups: ‘rejectionists’ who refuse to participate in a political system under which they are no longer dominant, ‘Saddamists’ who dream of returning to power, and ‘terrorists’ linked to Al Qaeda who hope to drive coalition forces out of Iraq and "establish a totalitarian Islamic empire."

Both the President’s address and the unclassified "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq," which has been posted on the White House Web site, reaffirm the administration’s commitment to "total victory" and an eventual withdrawal based on conditions on the ground rather than a timetable.

A reminder that foreign policy also hits closer to home

Murtha’s speech and the President’s address both brought the public into the debate, and encouraged legislators to weigh in on the strategies that they each proposed for the future. Immediately following the President’s speech, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) became the first Congressional leader to endorse Murtha’s plan. Pelosi’s speech highlighted the need for ordinary citizens to participate in the debate by emphasizing the President’s responsibilities to the American people as our political leader. She reminded us that foreign policy has real consequences that hit close to home, including huge economic deficits because the war is not covered by the budget and the potential for a draft in the near future because our existing troops are nearing their fourth round of assignment.

Commander-in-Chief or civic servant?

On the same day, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) articulated two major themes that have emerged since Murtha’s speech: the willingness on the part of politicians to inform the public on foreign policy, and the difficulty in determining the appropriate relationship between the President, Congress and the public during times of war.

Lugar acknowledged that the President, as commander-in-chief of the military, is not obligated to consult with Congress on war policy, but suggested that as the political leader of the nation, the President does have the obligation to "express his best convictions" and respond to questions and suggestions from members of Congress.

Public information and the responsibility of citizenship

Like President Bush, Senator Lugar said that he is against an exit strategy based on "artificial timetables," and instead favors a policy based on the gradual transfer of authority from coalition forces to Iraqis. He emphasized that it would be necessary to provide sustained support to guarantee a militarily, politically, and economically stable Iraq.

Lugar called on the President to inform Congress and the public on issues such as the components of the Iraqi security forces, historical ethnic and political tensions in Iraqi society. He highlighted weak economic factors such as high unemployment rates and the role of subsidies in the Iraqi economy that may seem mundane because they don’t involve life and death but which are in fact critical to the "continuity of society" in the eventual transfer of power.

Lugar’s speech was particularly significant because he not only trusted American citizens to understand nuanced information about the situation in Iraq but also reminded us that detailed information about the ongoing situation is always available (he mentioned the Brookings Institution and The U.S. Department of State: Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs as useful sources). He suggested that as citizens, each of us has not only the right but also the responsibility to be stay informed about foreign policy. He seemed to recommend that we hold our own elected officials to the standards that our government holds foreign leaders; as President Ronald Reagan said so succinctly, "trust, but verify."

Congressman John Murtha opened up a national debate on the war in Iraq and the attention that his speech received reminded politicians that even in wartime, a key way to gain support at home is to provide American citizens with credible information about their policies abroad. The public debate which followed gave us an unusual opportunity to see how foreign policy is shaped and to participate in the process. In the midst of our busy lives, it is tempting to rely on sound bites or simply ignore policies which don’t seem to affect us directly-- but as both citizens and women we have an obligation to remain informed and involved in the debate.

What do you think?

The debate over our strategy in Iraq raises question not only about the war but also about the appropriate roles of Congress, the President and citizens in times of war. Politicians have two jobs: to represent the opinions of their constituents and to make the right decisions for the nation as a whole. In times of war the President must fill two roles: commander-in-chief of the army and political leader of the nation. Do these roles conflict? As many of us have seen in the news, the American public is increasingly dissatisfied with the war in Iraq. What role should public opinion play in deciding foreign policy? Is the president obligated to inform Congress and the public about war policy? How much information about war policy is public information?

Despite disagreements about timetables and methods, both parties expect to withdraw coalition troops from Iraq when the country has been secured. Unlike the war in Iraq, the ‘War on Terrorism’ is unlikely to be completed in our lifetimes. What are the President’s obligations in this new kind of war? How do our responsibilities as citizens’ shift?

WomenMatter is a place to discuss life issues with other women. We don’t want to wedge women apart, but rather bring them together to dialogue. To participate in our blog, click here.

WomenMatter is the place where we can take one issue at a time, match what we do about it every day of our lives to the facts of the bigger system that we all live in and recognize that every idea for making it better has tradeoffs.

WomenMatter encourages women to educate themselves on the issues and then approach their representatives with ideas.

Your voice is vital. Make sure your leaders know what’s important to you. To see how your representatives vote and to contact them, click here.

WomenMatter is dedicated to empowering women to participate in the political process. To do this we have invested in the most in-depth NONPARTISAN information, because we trust each woman to make up her own mind.

• We track nine issues every week and update this website several times a week.
• We launch after school GirlsMatter Clubs in middle and high schools to grow the next generation of politically aware women through a full curriculum and startup kit on girlsmatter.com.
• We do continuous research to make sure that we are meeting the needs of women across the country of all ages, races, incomes, preferences, and religions.
• We provide partnerships with nonpartisan organizations that provide services to women and advocate for them.

We offer all our services free of charge without memberships or subscriptions. To help us maintain this work - not just in election years but as a continuing part of women’s lives - please make a tax deductible donation, click here.

Update Posted on: 12/10/2005