My
former colleagues in the House of
Representatives are grappling with
President Bush’s request for
congressional authority to use “all
means necessary”, including “force”
against Iraq, and “to take action in
order to deter and prevent acts of
international terrorism.”
It is a side bar of his broader
decision, announced in a national security
document on September 19, to establish the
U.S. government as world policeman with
the president as its chief.
It is unlikely that Congress will
ever face a request of higher risk to the
well-being of the American people, as well
as humankind worldwide.
In brief, the president asks Congress to support his
decision to make war-making, even the
pre-emptive type, a presidential policy
tool.
This is a radical change from
America’s traditional guiding principle
that reserves war strictly as an
instrument of last resort, mainly for
repelling direct attack against U.S.
territory or complying with treaty
obligations.
Up to the present, the declaration of war, a term for
war-making, has been accepted as the
Constitution provides as the exclusive
domain of Congress, the people’s branch
of government.
In a section of the proposed
resolution, war-making is listed, in
effect, as a responsibility and power of
the president, with the astounding
implication that he must be free to order
acts of war with little or no reference to
the Congress.
As stated in the president’s new security document, the
U.S. government shifts basic policy from
deterrence to dominance of adversaries and
arrogates enormous new authority to the
president.
To fulfill this self-appointed duty
to police the world, our government
declares that it must maintain absolute
military supremacy worldwide and take all
necessary action to assure that
adversarial nations do not increase their
military power.
In a notable bit of arrogance, the
plan even assumes U.S. responsibility to
advise other nations—starting with
China, of all places—on proper budget
outlays for military purposes.
The document contemplates Pax America, a prospect that is
unlikely to please more than a handful of
nations.
The plan relegates the United
Nations and all other international
institutions to a supportive role.
Expressed plainly, if they take the
lead that the U.S. government directs,
fine.
If not, they become irrelevant.
These startling, fundamental presidential decisions deserve
searching examination.
Congress must shed its normal
reluctance to examine a president’s
decisions during wartime, especially at
this time when U.S. troops are stationed
in far-flung hostile arenas and war
passions seem to be rising across America.
Non-governmental institutions, including academia,
foundations, and editorial boards, must
examine carefully the implications of the
president’s decisions before they can be
implemented.
Is the attempt at worldwide rule prudent for any nation,
even one as large, militarily strong, and
democratically-based as the United States?
Should the president abandon America’s long standing,
principled opposition to pre-emptive acts
of war?
If the United States, still
acknowledged as the world’s chief
advocate of the rule of law, undertakes a
pre-emptive war against Iraq—a clear
violation of international law, other
states will reasonably conclude that such
strikes are acceptable military conduct.
In that case, the world may sink to
the law of the jungle where only the
fittest can survive.
Even if the consensus of nationwide debate leads Congress
to conclude that pre-emptive acts of war
can be justified, other fundamental
questions demand thoughtful examination.
Should Congress limit the
president’s authority to make
pre-emptive strikes by requiring advance
congressional approval in each case?
If the answer is affirmative, can
Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq be
considered a sufficient threat to U.S.
security to qualify for pre-emptive
assault?
Congress needs to beware of unintended consequences.
Whatever resolution is enacted by Congress
must be drafted so carefully that it
cannot be construed as a declaration of
war, an interpretation that would
automatically convey dictatorial powers to
the president.
As a Member of Congress in 1848, Abraham Lincoln cited
war-making as the “most oppressive of
all kingly oppressions” and declared
that the Constitution was so constructed
“that no one man should hold the power
of bringing this oppression upon us.”
He added, “Allow the president to
invade a neighboring nation whenever he
shall deem it necessary to repel an
invasion, and … you allow him to make
war at pleasure.
Study to see if you can fix any
limit to his power in this respect.”
The proposed resolution, in effect, lets the president make
war at his pleasure.
Congress must deny the
president’s request for fast approval of
a pre-emptive strike against Iraq.
The issues involved are too
monumental for a quick decision.
Nevertheless, Congress should
promptly enact an interim response.
It could wisely enact as a
substitute a concurrent resolution listing
the circumstances in which the president
may constitutionally order acts of war:
namely, to comply with a treaty
obligation or to repel a military attack
against the territory of the United
States, its possessions, military services
engaged in peaceful maneuvers, or
shipping; to participate in humanitarian
rescue operations; or, in response to a
declaration of war or other authority
approved by a majority of the Members of
each House of Congress.
Enough said.
This would signify congressional opposition to any act of
war beyond those enumerated, a cautionary
notice to the White House that should
suffice until a thorough, national debate
on the president’s plan can be
concluded.
Paul
Findley, a Member of Congress, 1961-83,
was a major author of the War Powers
Resolution of 1973.
He resides in Jacksonville,
Illinois.
|
