During the congressional debate on the administration's plans to invade Iraq, the opponents, 156 from both chambers, all told, raised most of the questions and criticisms that have been mentioned in this space, and in many other places besides. Will this war give a precedent to India, Pakistan, Russia or China for preemptive strikes of their own? Will a cornered Saddam Hussein launch a chemical or biological attack'assuming for the moment that he has missile-ready chemical or biological agents'against Israel and our invasion force? And so on.
But one question that has escaped my attention now seems particularly important. Every junior high social studies student who has a knack for paying attention in class knows that only the Congress has the power to declare war. Funny that the President of the United States had to be told this, scores of times, before he publicly announced that he would seek congressional approval for his plans. But if Congress can start a war, who precisely, has the power to stop the war?
This question was answered on the floor of the Senate, on the last day of debate on the war resolution. The following, which has been taken from the Congressional Record, is a colloquy between Sens. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. and Paul Sarbanes, D-Md.
Sarbanes: \But the fact is that a President who wanted to keep that authority and may well want to use it, as long as he could keep the support of one-third'not of each House of the Congress but only one-third of one House, either a third of the Senators, plus one, or a third of the Members of the House of Representatives'he could negate congressional action that tried to pull back this war'making authority, could he not?""
Byrd: ""The distinguished Senator from Maryland is absolutely correct. It only takes a majority of both Houses to pass this resolution, but it would take two-thirds in the future if the President should attempt to veto a substitute piece of legislation by this Congress to abort what we are doing here today, to appeal it, to amend it. One-third plus one in either body could uphold the President's veto, and that legislation would not become law.""
This is basically true. Of course, Congress could pass a non-binding concurrent resolution calling for a cessation of hostilities. But the joint resolution passed last week will still be the law of the land'thus, the President could completely ignore Congress. This eventuality would probably invite talk of impeachment, but the President could still hang onto power with the assistance of one-third of
the Senate.
The long and the short of it is that the war with Iraq will end when the President wants it to. And Congress is effectively powerless to reverse the action they made last week, even if such a reversal is desirable.
Most of the congressional opponents, along with some supporters, wondered how an invasion would affect the larger War on Terrorism. And given the past week's news, their concerns are more than justified.
Two Marines were killed in Kuwait. Another ship was attacked in Yemen. Scores of Australians were killed in an Indonesian resort town. A terrorism briefing from the respected foreign policy research organization, Jane's, reported Thursday al Qaeda adherents in Pakistan are moving back into Afghanistan. And if the latest missive to al Jazeera is authentic, Osama bin Laden is still alive, directing affairs from afar.
So are we winning the War on Terrorism? Just ask Jane's, which wrote in the Sept. 5 edition of its Intelligence Digest, ""in the view of many within the Western intelligence community, al Qaeda is probably stronger now than it was before Sept. 11."" The same report cites, as one of the reasons for the increased strength of al Qaeda, the Administration's ""focus on secondary distractions, such as the 'axis of evil.'""
And to that point, the Sydney Morning Herald'the newspaper of record in a nation still reeling from the Bali massacre'seems to think that the White House's push for a war against Iraq might be part of the problem.
From an editorial in Monday's edition: ""Some will argue the bombings strengthen the case
for Australian support of Washington's war on terrorism. However, we must also question whether the present, aggressive direction of U.S. foreign policy is, in itself, proving counterproductive. ... The question is whether external actors are manipulating nascent, radical Islam inside Indonesia, or whether international events'in particular U.S. war plans for Iraq'are, themselves, creating a new breed of Indonesian terrorists.""
The advice from Jane's, from the Herald and from many others is sensible enough. The president ought to clean off his plate before he asks for seconds.
