Jewish World Review June 7, 2002 / 27 Sivan, 5762
war on Iraq?
Eleven years ago, we had a similar debate, about the same enemy, with a president of the same name. The senior President Bush did not believe that he needed Congress' authorization to make war on Iraq (though he eventually did ask for and receive it). What does this President Bush think?
Does the constitutional grant of executive authority and the title commander in chief give the president the necessary authority to make war? If so, does that make the Congress' power to declare war a nullity?
Certainly the president's authority as commander in chief has been broadly understood since the nation's founding. We've been involved in hundreds of military conflicts, large and small. And declaring war turns out to be the historical exception, rather than the rule. The United States has formally declared war only five times: The War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II. In more than 200 other cases, the United States has made war or acted militarily without a formal declaration.
The founders gave the president latitude to use his war powers because they understood that the nation could be attacked, in which case the president would need to act with dispatch. An early draft of the Constitution had given Congress power "to make war;" this was changed to "declare" so as not to tie the president's hands in an emergency. Elsewhere, the Constitution gives governors the power to defend themselves: "No state shall, without the consent of Congress ... engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay."
A pre-emptive attack on Iraq would certainly be self-defense on our part, but it would also clearly not meet the case of an emergency use of military power. Though urgently necessary, "regime change" in Iraq is not the sort of war that seems to fall into the president's sole discretion. Besides, there are strong political arguments in favor of asking Congress for a declaration of war.
In the first place, the president needs the Congress' support anyway. He must be able to make the case for funding such a war, and Congress alone can do that. But a formal declaration also binds the Congress and prevents the sort of weasely backtracking members of Congress engaged in after Vietnam. They supported the war until it went south. They then tried to shift blame by passing the War Powers Resolution, which implied that Vietnam was solely a presidential screw-up.
What if Congress declines to declare war? This seems a long shot. Even in 1991, when we were fighting merely to "liberate" Kuwait and prevent Saddam from enjoying the fruits of aggression (our war aims were too narrow, but that's a different column), a Congress dominated by Democrats gave its approval (narrowly, it's true, but still).
Today, the nation is in a changed mood, though admittedly the post 9-11 unity has sagged a bit. Still, large majorities of Americans favor all of the common-sense steps one could propose: arm pilots, profile passengers, diss Saudi Arabia, topple the Taliban, tighten border controls, support Israel, destroy Saddam. One house is controlled by the Republicans, and the other is almost evenly divided. Also, the stakes are far higher. The president needs only to assemble one of his home-run speeches outlining the nexus between Iraq and terrorists of various stripes. Only a fool could fail to see the horrible possibilities if a terrorist should lay hands on a weapon of mass destruction. And while we have fools in Congress, they do not comprise a majority.
The president should ask for a declaration of war. The country will back him, and the Congress will follow the
Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.