January 1991, Page 71

From the Council for the National Interest

Is Congress Shirking Its Role in the Gulf Crisis?

By Paul Findley

While the question of war in the Persian Gulf shifts back and forth from whether to when, everyone sperns to assume that President Bush alone, acting in his capacity as commander-in-chief, has the right to send our forces into combat in Kuwait and Iraq.

The Gulf crisis is not child's play. Five hundred thousand American troops will soon be on the firing line. If war comes, body bags by the thousands will be needed. In fact, they've already been shipped to the Gulf and 42 of them already used. Each bag represents a precious human life and the prospect of indescribable agony for family and friends.

Is the United States ready to charge pellmell into war without congressional debate and sanction in any form? Can nothing be done to halt the mad dash? Is Congress necessarily a bystander in all this?

A Fatalistic Resignation?

The American people seem resigned almost fatalistic in accepting the fact that one man, and one only, will make the awesome decision.

Despite the fact that the crisis prevailed during the last two months of its session, the 101st Congress concluded its business and adjourned for the year almost silent on the question of war, reserving only the right to reassemble if the congressional leadership deemed an emergency session necessary.

In the long and noisy political campaign just ended, the US role in the Gulf, the greatest and gravest national topic, was a nonissue. To my knowledge, no challenger accused an incumbent in Congress of dereliction of duty in the exercise of war powers, that is, of letting the president take away from Congress the right to decide war or peace.

The president, of course, is the commander-in-chief and, as a practical matter, able to order our military forces to undertake almost any task he wishes. And, over the years, presidents have traditionally resisted the exercise of war powers by Congress. But the authority to declare war—that is, to make war constitutionally—clearly resides in the Congress, and only the Congress.

On occasion, presidents have violated the Constitution in this realm. In Korea, President Harry S. Truman, acting under UN mandate but without congressional approval, ordered US forces into battle. He contended it was a "police action," not a war.

Robert Taft, a prominent and respected US senator of that era, challenged Truman's authority but got nowhere. Taft's challenge was lonely and unpopular. By then US forces were engaged with the enemy, and when the American flag is under assault, debate of war powers is almost impossible.

Fortunately, today's US forces are not engaged in hostilities. Our flag is not under fire, and civilized debate is still possible.

With massive US forces deployed far from our borders, our military objectives must be clarified without further delay. Are our forces in the Gulf for purely defensive purposes, specifically the defense of Saudi Arabia? Are we also there to liberate Kuwait? to demilitarize Iraq? to install some undefined new world order?

Some Questions Have Answers

The answers to some questions are obvious. Is the United States obligated under the United Nations charter to go to war against Iraq? Of course not. We are committed to oppose the forcible acquisition of territory, but our government reserves the right to decide, through our constitutional processes, the form our resistance will take.

If the United Nations Security Council, of which the US is a permanent member, orders military action against Iraq, does President Bush have the constitutional authority to cooperate by sending US forces? No. Only Congress can convey that authority.

Will the president ask Congress for authority before ordering forces into combat? Based on past presidential performance, the answer is no. Bush made no such request during the buildup of forces while Congress was in session.

Will he consult congressional leaders before making a decision to order our forces to attack? Again, past performance suggests a resounding no. Presidential "consultation" usually means nothing more than notification after decisions are made. And even consultation, in its purest form, would not relieve Congress of its war powers responsibilities.

Sadly, all presidents tend to ignore Congress—and the Constitution—in the use of military force. If Congress is to exercise its constitutional authority, it must not await a presidential invitation. Its leaders must quickly and aggressively take the initiative.

The scene is painfully reminiscent of the Vietnam disaster when Congress did not make a clear decision on war policy until years had passed. In that war, military measures were half-hearted and ineffective, public discontent grew, and domestic protest finally brought US participation to an ignominious end.

Congressional debate and decision on going to war are essential to our national wellbeing. They will clear the air and rally the country behind whatever decision will notify Iraq's Saddam Hussain in the strongest possible terms of United States resolve. Without it, the awesome, life-threatening decision on war may soon be made privately by one man.

Former Illinois Congressman Paul Findley is chairman of the Council for the National Interest. His best-selling book, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby,is available from the AET Book Club.