war powers act – New Nationalism

I believe that war should never be resorted to when, or as long as, it is honorably possible to avoid it. I respect all men and women who from high motives and with sanity and self-respect do all they can to avert war. I advocate preparation for war in order to avert war; and I should never advocate war unless it were the only alternative to dishonor.

Theodore Roosevelt, “America the Unready”, Theodore Roosevelt, An Autobiography, 1913

I recently had the somber honor of visiting the American cemetery in Normandy, France. One cannot look out over the sea of white crosses stretching toward Omaha Beach without thinking of the hopes and dreams of the young men who never made it past that spot on D-Day. Two of Theodore Roosevelt’s sons – Theodore Jr., and Quentin – rest amidst those crosses. It forces you to confront the cost of war and why Theodore Roosevelt’s respect for those who try to avoid it should command our respect as well.

Donald Trump should have made a pilgrimage of his own to this site before he began our current war against Iran. Perhaps this somber memorial would have made him reconsider the need for this war or at least identify a clear objective and then convince the American people of its necessity. Instead, he unilaterally embarked on another forever war that strains American resources, trashes our reputation, and thus our influence in a region far from our own shores.

In my series “Nationalist Foreign Relations – A History”, I said the world was moving from a period of great power rivalry to a world where there are no superpowers. By beginning this war, President Trump has recklessly accelerated this process. A prudent stewardship of our domestic, economic and foreign assets would have positioned the US to be the “great balancer” in a world of diffused power. Instead, President Trump has essentially declared war on the world by our blockade of Iran and is exhausting our economic and military assets in prosecuting this conflict. The net result will likely position China, not the US, as the great balancer in a world newly desperate for security and respect.

In an uncharacteristic display of legal humility, Trump has not tried to cloak the war under the provisions of the Global War on Terror authorized after the 9/11 attacks. On March 2, he sent Congress the notice of the conflict required under the War Powers Resolution, thus triggering a process that would force a justification of the war. Congress must pass an Authorization of Military Force (AUMF) by April 29 for it to continue. If it doesn’t, the President must begin the process of withdrawing American troops, which must be completed within 30 days.

The two sides are far apart in their negotiations, so the conflict will still be raging in some form by the April 29 deadline. The President may claim we are winning and that peace is at hand. He will try to shame Congress into authorization by saying they must support the troops in combat. If these shibboleths don’t work, he will resort to the time-honored tactic of claiming American credibility is at risk.

The congressional debate will try to define the true and achievable goals of this war. It will also highlight the monetary costs to the federal government and identify how we will raise the money to pay for it. It will also discuss the impact of this war on the American consumer and the world economy. However, it will also be about something even more fundamental and critical.

It will be a debate about America’s soul.

This war is a matter of choice, grounded in an unsustainable globalist assertion of military supremacy. Like the little Dutch boy, Donald Trump is using our precious and dwindling resources to vainly plug the breach in the dike of American unipolarity in a multipolar world. The reasons have ranged from ending Iran’s nuclear program to establishing a new American hegemony over the Persian Gulf to control China. The former injects American power into the Middle East in a way that benefits only Israel. As the Israelis put it, we would regularly sacrifice American lives and money to help them in “mowing the grass” of Arab resentment, all for little advantage to ourselves. At best, it is a form of liberal interventionism that would make even Barack Obama blush. If global hegemony is the goal, any immediate gains will come only through an exercise in naked power and will thus reek of fascism. Such a war betrays the principles that have been the bedrock of our soft power and will damage our long-term security and influence in the world for decades.

The easy vote would be to gloss over all this and succumb to the siren song of “support the troops.” Opposition would be condemned as surrender, and opponents as terrorist sympathizers. In response, progressive nationalists should quote Donald Trump’s promises to end forever wars like this and focus on rebuilding our own country. They should point out that Iran’s assertion of control over the Straits of Hormuz has already met with strong opposition from European and Asian nations. We can support a truly multinational effort to enforce maritime law and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. As for nuclear weapons, the damage caused to Iran by the war will set back any Iranian program by 5-10 years. Even in the worst case, a nuclear Iran would simply create a new balance of power in the Middle East against Israel’s nuclear capabilities. The history of the Cold War and the India-Pakistan standoff shows that such a balance can actually calm conflicts rather than cause them.

More importantly, a defeat of an unrestricted Iranian AUMF would reassert the primacy of Congress‘s war powers. It would draw a constitutional line in the sand against further erosion of Congressional authority, in the backdrop of a conflict that has little impact on our national security. There may never be a better opportunity to preserve the necessary checks on Presidential war powers than now.

The upcoming debate will be among the most significant in American history. Is war still America’s last resort in international disputes, or will it now become our first resort? During that debate, House and Senate members would do well to remember the soldiers who lost their lives on D-Day and are memorialized by the white crosses of Normandy. They gave their lives believing America stood for freedom and peace. Congress will soon decide whether it still does.

Opening the Pandora’s Box
Presidential Military Power – Part 3

I believe that war should never be resorted to when, or as long as, it is honorably possible to avoid it. I respect all men and women who from high motives and with sanity and self-respect do all they can to avert war. I advocate preparation for war in order to avert war; and I should never advocate war unless it were the only alternative to dishonor.
Theodore Roosevelt, “America the Unready”, Theodore Roosevelt, An Autobiography, 1913

A democracy like the United States assumes unique risks in an anarchic and hostile world. As a free people, we accept a higher vulnerability to attacks like 9/11 as the price of maintaining our freedoms. Once war is declared, we then accept the casualties, both to our soldiers and our values, but only for the limited period necessary to win the war. The gravity of both types of loss demands that the decision to go to war be made not just by one person, but by the nation pursuant to the open debate envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

I outlined the deficiencies of the current War Powers Resolution in a previous post in this series. The law desperately needs to be updated to distinguish between different threat levels and to address new types of warfare. First, we should recognize that not all warfare requires the same level of congressional scrutiny. An attack upon the American homeland and a first strike against a foreign state or its leaders should be subject to a significantly higher level of congressional consultation and review. These should be considered “major conflicts” under the law. In contrast, retaliation against overseas attacks, peacekeeping actions and other types of conflict should continue to be covered, but require authorization under the current level of scrutiny.

The law also should apply to clandestine warfare such as cyber-attacks and low level actions such as drone attacks. Since military action will not always be the appropriate response to these kinds of attacks, presidents should be able to seek non-military responses such as trade sanctions, diplomatic or other actions in a new type of resolution called an Authorization of Action (AOA), which would also apply to military action. To prevent endless wars, AOA’s should be automatically limited to no more than three years in duration absent a vote to renew the authorization or a declaration of war. AOAs should also be directed at a specific state and not at a private organization or type of warfare as was the 2001 authorization.

However, history shows that no change in the scope of presidential war powers will effectively restrain president military power without an enforcement mechanism that forces Congress to act and take responsibility for the situation. Next to the war-making power, the most important power of Congress is the power of the purse – it’s authorization and appropriation of federal dollars. Current law and budgetary practice grants broad authorization to the Pentagon to spend money to support our military in the field – a necessary tool, but one that can be abused. To prevent this, the law should provide that, notwithstanding any other law or appropriation, the President is not authorized to spend money on an action requiring an AOA after the 60-day deadline for congressional authorization.

Finally, since major conflicts inherently expose the nation to greater risk, they should require more congressional consultation and an enforcement mechanism that makes it equally risky for presidents to ignore the process. To achieve this, the role of the “Gang of Eight” congressional leaders should be formalized and strengthened. If the President engages in a major conflict without proper consultation and authority, any four of the “gang”should have the power to force a record vote on impeachment of the president in the House of Representatives or a censure resolution in both the House and Senate. For example, these standards would have triggered such consultation and review not only for the Soleimani killing, but also the Russian hacking campaign against the 2016 election.

Critics of these reforms will complain they tie the President’s hands in the prosecution of a war. If a conflict is truly momentous enough to give the commander-in-chief wide-ranging power to prosecute it, there is a clear solution – seek and obtain a formal declaration of war. At the other extreme, advocates of clandestine warfare will claim that applying the same authorization standards to lower profile cyber and drone attacks would unnecessarily expose our capabilities and risk spiraling the conflict into a shooting war. Granting the President the right to seek a non-military response, however, lessens this threat, informs the American public of it and enlists their support in combating the threat. It also would prevent the secret wars the act was designed to prevent and whose very existence also creates a risk of escalation.

TR‘s most famous saying was “speak softly and carry a big stick”. The most important element of this “big stick” was the knowledge that the American people would fight a war to a victorious conclusion. At the same time, he knew from personal experience how horrible war could be and was proud no American service man died in combat during his presidency. A realistic and restrained foreign policy assumes the costs of war only in those rare instances when the national security is directly in danger and thus when public support is more likely. Those are exactly the wars America can and should win. These reforms to the War Powers Resolution would help limit our wars to only those kinds of necessary conflicts.

Tag: war powers act

A Battle for America’s Soul

Restraint through Freedom