| |
COMMENTARY
Troops occupy Congress
...
By Stephen Blank
Two
recent votes by the US Congress - one authorizing the
creation of a Department of Homeland Security and
another authorizing military action against Iraq - raise
profound constitutional questions. Regardless of the
merits of attacking Iraq and of creating this
department, and without considering the current
political composition of the White House and Congress,
these votes continue and extend a disturbing trend.
Evidently no Congress can prevent a sitting president
from committing the armed forces, prestige and national
interests of the United States to a war, if that is what
the president really intends to do.
Nor is
Congress apparently ready to offer an alternative when
it comes to reorganizing the institutions that provide
for American national security. This does not mean that
wars that grow out of unilateral presidential action are
unjustified or against the national interest. World War
II in Europe, Korea, the Gulf War of 1991 and Kosovo
were justified wars fought in the national interest. Yet
President George W Bush is nonetheless extending a
dangerous precedent, for it is clear that the
constitution's balance of power with regard to questions
of war and peace has been broken, perhaps irretrievably.
Nor is this a partisan assessment; President Bill
Clinton, too, did not seek congressional authorization
for the war in Kosovo.
Today presidents have too
much power and too many tools at their disposal for
Congress to refuse their wish to attack foreign
adversaries, especially if the president has already
committed troops or given guarantees of commitment to
foreign powers. Thus a dangerous imbalance of power has
developed at the heart of the American political system.
Future presidents, lacking checks upon their power, may
extend current practice and their power to create, as in
Vietnam, functional equivalents of a declaration of war
that lead to disaster.
While this large subject
requires serious and extensive debate, certain
consequences of this erosion of Congressional power are
already visible. As Congress' power to check
presidential war-making has eroded, a vacuum has
developed. Because nature abhors a vacuum, the media and
the military have asserted their power to define the
conditions under which the US may go to war. Today the
media's power to create a climate of public opinion is
such that it can generate a clamor to "do something" in
a crisis even if that something is unclear, infeasible
or misconceived. Because the media is not a monolith,
its message may be divided and diffused, and carry no
specific injunction beyond simply acting decisively. But
there is no denying the power of the so-called "CNN
effect" upon policy makers.
The power of the
media to influence the policy debate clearly stems from
Congress' inability to shape or regulate this debate
alone and to the fact that it controls to some degree
Congressional access to the public. Moreover, the
media's ubiquity and constant presence, as well as its
simplistic message, allow it to fill the vacuum created
by the weakening of Congressional power to hold a
president accountable for American defense policy. Thus
the media has to some degree replaced Congress. But
because of its diffused and simplistic nature, it cannot
replace Congress in conducting a substantive and
thorough investigation and debate over questions of war
and peace.
The US military has also stepped into
this breach. Many scholars, particularly Richard Kohn in
a powerful essay in the Naval War College Review, point
to the military's increasing willingness to assert its
views concerning the conditions over which American
forces can be deployed. Indeed, some come close to
courses of action that could be construed as
insubordination. Public criticism of prospective
scenarios like then-chief of staff Colin Powell's
disparagement of plans to invade Bosnia, or covert leaks
of possible war plans against Iraq, reflect the feeling
among prominent military leaders and ranking officers
that they have a right and duty to attempt to legislate
on questions of war and peace.
Unfortunately,
the armed forces are neither equipped nor
constitutionally mandated to assume this responsibility.
In fact, their attempts to do so may overstep the
boundaries of a proper civil-military relationship in
our democracy. Congress' abdication of power or failure
to sustain it against the growth of executive power is
not a license for the military to arrogate those powers
to itself. Restoring the balance of power among all
those with legitimate input into deciding questions of
war and peace cannot mean replacing Congressional power
with media or military power. Instead of restoring the
lost balance that further distorts it.
Without
prejudice to the war on Iraq, we clearly must address
these issues of power and constitutional prerogatives
sooner rather than later. We cannot count that unchecked
presidential decision-making will invariably lead to
sound strategic decisions. The very fact that we must
now revisit Iraq attests to our strategic failure in the
last war despite our military victory then. Vietnam
provided the impetus for attempts to restrain
presidential power over war and peace because it brought
about the greatest defeat and constitutional crisis in
American history. Though that effort was made, it has
proven insufficient. Must we undergo another Vietnam to
again attempt to restore the lost balance?
Professor Stephen Blank, Strategic
Studies Institute, US Army War College, Carlisle
Barracks PA.
(The views expressed here do
not in any way represent those of the US Army, Defense
Department or the government.)
(©2002 Asia
Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact content@atimes.com
for information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
