Congress is right to try to check Trump's war-making power
(CNN)On Sunday House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced
that she will support a "War Powers Resolution to limit the President's
military actions regarding Iran." Pelosi affirmed "Congress's
long-established oversight responsibilities." "We are concerned," she
explained, "that the administration took this action without the
consultation of Congress and without respect for Congress's war powers
granted to it by the Constitution."
Iranian retaliation against two US military bases in Iraq and President Donald Trump's statement that
Tehran "appears to be standing down" have not dissuaded House and
Senate Democrats from pursuing legislation in the coming days that will
force the White House to consult Congress before any military
escalation. "We need answers and clarity from them now," Representative
Jason Crow, a former US Army Ranger who served in Afghanistan and in
Iraq, explained.
"And then we can start having discussions about what authorities they
need to make sure that our troops are protected." Senator Tim Kaine told
CNN, "What we learned from the last 18 months is ... this thing has
been going up and down cycles ... and deliberation is the antidote to
unnecessary escalation."
In
the aftermath of the Vietnam War many members of Congress sought to
reassert their oversight responsibility, as House and Senate Democrats
are doing now. On November 7, 1973 the House and Senate passed, over a
veto by President Richard Nixon, a "Joint Resolution Concerning the War Powers of Congress and the President."
The
"War Powers Act," as it came to be known, did not prevent the
deployment of military force in the future. It sought to "insure that
the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will
apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into
hostilities." The new law required substantive consultation with
Congress "before introducing United States Armed Forces into
hostilities," and detailed updates on operations. It has, since its
inception, also clearly failed to check the president's war-making
power.
Analyst on Trump's speech: There was a little for everyone 01:37
Republican
senators will probably prevent Pelosi's proposed measures from passing
now, and Trump will likely retain a blank check to use military force
against Iran. Pelosi's actions are, however, beginning a long overdue
dialogue about Congress seizing back its constitutional control over
war-making. As with impeachment, a House of Representatives that
redoubles its efforts to protect democracy today, plants the seeds for
further reforms, perhaps after the 2020 elections.
The
Constitution, of course, grants Congress the sole power to declare war
(Article 1, Section 8), but presidents have asserted the right to take
military action without congressional approval since George Washington
raised a militia to disperse the "Whiskey Rebellion"
in Western Pennsylvania. From Korea and Vietnam to Afghanistan and
Iraq, the United States has been continuously at war for 70 years, but
Congress has largely deferred to presidents. After the Second World War,
presidents built a large national security infrastructure in the White
House to deploy military force rapidly around the globe, usually
consulting Congress after the fact. Congress has allowed the White House
to initiate extended military conflicts without a formal declaration of
war since 1942.
Opinion: What Iran strike means for the US
The
1973 War Powers Act necessitated immediate and formal presidential
reporting to Congress if the president deployed military force in a case
of "national emergency." After his report to Congress, the president
had to terminate all military activities within 60 calendar days, unless
both houses passed a declaration of war, a specific authorization for
military force (or AUMF), or an extension of the reporting period. Any
use of military force after 60 days, without a congressional vote of
approval, would be illegal.
Since
1973 presidents have inconsistently adhered to the consulting and
reporting requirements of the War Powers Act, and they have consistently
resisted the legal limitations on force deployments. Ronald Reagan deployed force
to overthrow the government of Nicaragua without consulting Congress,
and in explicit violation of congressional prohibitions, including the
Boland Amendment. George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush both
received congressional authorizations for war in the Middle East, but
they claimed that they still would have had the right to enter these
military conflicts even if Congress had said no. Bill Clinton deployed
military forces in Somalia and he bombed Serbia
for more than 60 days without congressional authorization, arguing it
was not necessary in either case. And Barack Obama helped facilitate the
overthrow of
a regime in Libya, absent approval from Congress. (Nancy Pelosi opposed
George W. Bush's war against Iraq, but she supported Clinton's bombing
of Serbia and Obama's actions in Libya.)
Clapper on Iran: There's been too much 'chest-beating' 02:50
Since
the end of the Cold War, congressional influence over the use of
American force has diminished, as Democratic and Republican presidents
have deployed the US military in a vast array of "small wars" around the
globe. And when Congress has passed authorizations of military force,
as it did in 2001 and 2002, presidents have stretched these measures to
justify the use of armed force in distant locations and for different
purposes more than 15 years later. Presidents have ignored Congress or
treated its legislation as a blank check for making war.
Why
has Congress allowed this to happen? The War Powers Act offers, on
paper at least, a sensible balance for the president's need to exercise
emergency powers in times of threat, and the Congress' constitutional
responsibility to make the final decisions about war. It responded to
the overwhelming evidence that America's global responsibilities after
the Second World War, the diverse range of threats and the unprecedented
military capabilities at the disposal of the president gave the White
House too much control over war-making in our democracy.
Presidents,
however, have made it very difficult for Congress to act. Once the
commander-in-chief sends American soldiers abroad, as President Trump
has done since killing Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, members of
Congress do not want to use their power of the purse to cut off funding
for these servicemen and women. Members of Congress also do not want to
look "unpatriotic" for criticizing what are always the early, and
deceptive, signs of American military dominance. It never plays well at
home to appear pessimistic about American power abroad, until it is too
late.
This
historical dynamic of presidential military interventionism is likely
to continue, so long as Congress does not take additional steps to
assert its power. That is why the current call for a war powers
resolution is so important. Congress will have to do more than simply
criticize the president for failing to consult, report and seek
legislative approval. Members of Congress will have to show that they
are willing to cut off funds and pass explicit legislation prohibiting
the US armed forces from assassinating foreign leaders or bombing
civilian sights without military value (as President Trump has
threatened.)
Get our free weekly newsletter
Speaker
Pelosi and her colleagues are shining a bright light on abuses of
presidential military power. In use of force and other areas, Trump is
exploiting traditions of presidential deference that are undemocratic,
and must finally change.
No comments