Congress caves on Iran
Gordon L. Weil
Maine Sen. Susan Collins demonstrated last week how she maintains
her reputation as a Republican moderate.
Her statements are evidence of the decline of Congress.
As President Trump geared up for the U.S.-Israel war on
Iran, Collins cautioned that war should only be a “last
resort.” This remark was constructive,
because Iran’s representatives still held out the hope of a negotiated
settlement on their nuclear development.
But, like the rest of Congress and America’s allies, Collins did not
know that Trump had already decided on war.
War came, and questions were promptly raised about the
absence of congressional authorization. The
War
Powers Resolution, intended to limit a president’s ability to take the U.S.
to war, might be used to put on the brakes.
Under that Resolution, the president is required to brief Congress
within 48 hours and needs congressional authorization to continue the war beyond
60 days.
Collins opposed
mandating an earlier end of the Iran war.
Her stated rationale was that Trump had provided the required briefing
and therefore could legally proceed. Collins
and all Republican senators but one refused to deauthorize the action.
The impression left by Collins was that Trump had acted
legally, so no further action was needed.
What happened to her “last resort?”
The GOP attitude ignored the purpose
of the 48-hour notice. Congress does not
have to wait 60 days to halt the war. By
their action, the GOP senators and later the House approved the war.
Their action recalled the congressional vote supporting
President G.W. Bush’s Iraq War. Members don’t want to look weak after the
president has proclaimed that he acted to protect Americans. In the Iraq case, the supposed threat from “weapons
of mass destruction” did not exist. In
the Iran case, Trump has offered nothing more about a threat than his opinion.
After Iraq, some senators and representatives regretted having
gone along with the vote. Similarly,
after the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, members expressed regret about having
authorized the Vietnam War, relying on false reports about an alleged attack on
a U.S. submarine.
The past votes were not as openly partisan as was the Iran
vote, which took on the character of an expression of GOP support for the MAGA president. It did not appear to be an individually
considered decision about sending U.S. armed forces into combat with the attendant
loss of life by citizens of the U.S. and other nations.
It’s now argued that the world has changed since the Constitution
was written, and Congress would move too slowly to declare war in modern times. It is sensible to leave the decision on war
to the president, some analysts say, because presidents control foreign affairs
and serve as commander-in-chief.
The prime power left to Congress is to enact legislation to
block funding for a war, though it would have to withstand a presidential
veto. That would make it almost certain
to fail.
As with the earlier authorizations, senators and representatives
may yet have to justify their votes.
They may apologize, as have some of their predecessors. But, when the vote was taken, there seemed to
be no thought of their personal accountability to the voters.
Congress cannot “make” war. A legislative body cannot control military
action, beyond authorizing it or not.
But making war is distinct from “declaring” war, which is an essential
function of an elected legislature.
The issue is particularly complicated because the Constitution
makes the president, the chief civil official, also the chief military officer. What
worked for George Washington did not work for many of his successors.
Congress must make the policy decision committing the
country on a course that will cost the lives of Americans and others. While generals must inevitably issue orders
resulting in the death of some of their troops, their actions must be
authorized by agencies responsible to the people in whose name they act.
In the U.S., the responsible agency is Congress and not the lone
chief executive. The president may order
actions costing lives, but they should have congressional authorization. The power over life and death is too great an
authority to accord to a single person, one who may never again face voter scrutiny.
The current War Powers Resolution does not work well. The Resolution applies after the fact, which
is too late. Going through the motions
of following it allowed Sen. Collins to abandon her moderate “last resort”
statement for GOP partisanship.
If Congress values its authority and believes the constitutional
war power needs updating, it should adopt a Resolution that its funding approval
for any future war requires it receiving advance notice, except in case of a
direct attack on the U.S.
Without some role for Congress, the president’s surprise
attack on an adversary is also a surprise attack on his own country.
