| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Former U.S. Officials Want to Change Process for Going to War |
| 2008-07-08 |
| Oh dear.... Congress should pass legislation to require the president to consult lawmakers before going to war, according to a bipartisan study group chaired by former secretaries of state James Baker III and Warren Christopher. In a report released Tuesday, the panel says the current law governing the nation's war powers has failed to promote cooperation between the executive and legislative branch. It says the 1973 resolution should be repealed and replaced with new legislation that would require the president to inform Congress of any plans to engage in "significant armed conflict," such as operations lasting longer than a week. In turn, Congress would act within 30 days, either approving or disapproving the action. Baker, who served as in the first Bush administration and co-chaired the 2006 Iraq Study Group, said the proposal isn't intended to resolve constitutional disputes between the White House and Congress on who should decide whether the nation fights. "What we aim to do with this statute is to create a process that will encourage the two branches to cooperate and consult in a way that is both practical and true to the spirit of the Constitution," he said in a statement. A new joint House and Senate committee would be established to review the president's justification for war. To do so, the committee would be granted access to highly classified information. Congress' involvement in approving combat operations became a central issue in the Iraq debate last year, when Democrats tried to force President Bush to end the war. While Congress had authorized combat in Iraq, Democrats said the resolution approved only the invasion and not a five-year counterinsurgency. After taking control of Congress in January 2007, Democrats tried to cap force levels and set a timetable for withdrawals. While they lacked a veto-proof majority to put the restrictions into law, the White House argued that such legislation would have violated the Constitution by infringing upon the president's right as commander in chief to protect the nation. Democrats disagreed, contending there was ample precedence. The one surefire way for Congress to have ended the war was to cut off money for combat operations -- a step most Democrats weren't willing to make because they feared doing so would have hurt troops in harms' way, or at least be perceived by voters that way. The plan identified by Baker and Christopher, who served as secretary of State under President Clinton, would not necessarily resolve such issues in the future. But it would create a consultative process between the White House and Congress that currently does not exist. Also, calling on Congress to respond would exert significant political pressure on a president if he ignored lawmakers' wishes. The panel studied the issue for more than a year and consulted more than three dozen experts. Other members of the panel include former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton, who in 2006 led the Iraq Study Group with Baker; former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, and Strobe Talbott, former deputy secretary of State. The Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia sponsored the study. |
| Posted by:Sherry |
| #13 The founding fathers never in their imagination thought we'd be tagged with maintaining and operating a major military force across the world. I couldn't disagree more. They clearly thought they were creating a republic that would grow to be equal or superior to any European power. One of their greatest concerns was whether a nation of such broad expanse could survive as a republic. But that it would have great expanse they never doubted. That they could not see today's world in many details is as clear as that we cannot imagine the details of the world of 250 years from now. But I daresay they would be less surprised by the way things have turned out thus far than we would be by the world 250 years hence. What they would be surprised at was that the United States would stop growing. Blaming the standing army of the cold war on the Japanese is ludicrous. It was due to HW Bush alone. Had Stalin not threatened Europe we would have demilitarized as we did after prior wars. But Stalin was foolish enough to make his intentions clear before we had forgotten the lesson of Munich. As a result we rebuilt a standing army for 50 years of warm and cold war. It was at the end of this war that we did not remotely attempt to demilitarize. Blame HW Bush for the continued militarization of the US. Had he disbanded NATO and brought home the troops we would have been much better off. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-07-08 22:14 |
| #12 I say that the American People declare war on Congress. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2008-07-08 21:53 |
| #11 The problem is nobody holds the Congress accountable for voting for something and then later backtracking. If you did not have enough time to read something you should not sign it. That is the job of Congress for crying out loud. Cowards. And the other problem is the declaration of war should have very large font letters stating DECLARATION OF WAR on the top so there is no doubt. Don't fuzz it up. Then attach spending and things directly to that so when the war is declared over any bills attached also end. It's not rocket science. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-07-08 18:03 |
| #10 IMHO the problem doesn't go back to WWII, because the postwar military really was cut drastically back. It sadly dates to the Korean War and Harry Truman, who (of all people) should have asked for a declaration of war against North Korea. I understand your approach, but the US, while downsizing the physical force, substituted its monopoly on atomic weapons as a counter force and maintained commitments and token forces world wide as a 'show of force'. The mindset of being 'engaged' created by WWII hadn't disappeared. For a couple of years it was thought possible to be committed on the cheap. The first 'peacetime' draft was initiated by Truman in 1948 in response to the Soviet blockade of Berlin. In 1949 the Soviets explode their first nuke made possible by the communist espionage efforts and the American monopoly ended. North Korea invades the south in 1950. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-07-08 15:28 |
| #9 "When i hear the words Christopher and Baker I release the safety catch on my gun." |
| Posted by: borgboy 2008-07-08 14:32 |
| #8 MHW, Not only was the War Powers Act passed over a Nixon veto, but it's been generally assumed by both sides that if the WPA ever went to the Supreme Court, it would die a quick and spectacular death. IMHO the problem doesn't go back to WWII, because the postwar military really was cut drastically back. It sadly dates to the Korean War and Harry Truman, who (of all people) should have asked for a declaration of war against North Korea. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2008-07-08 14:26 |
| #7 A better change: seize the f*cking oil fields the next time we liberate a bunch of no good-niks... |
| Posted by: borgboy 2008-07-08 14:24 |
| #6 The 'problem' is the curse of December 7th. The founding fathers never in their imagination thought we'd be tagged with maintaining and operating a major military force across the world. The Constitution wasn't written with those objectives in mind, but the historical memories of Charles I, Cromwell, the the Revolution in mind. They sought to control the Executive in engaging in war making power not just by legislative acts like declarations of war, but also through the maintenance of a small standing army. They understood that the President shouldn't have to convene to Congress every time some conflict developed on the frontier or the country was subjected to an unanticipated invasion with Congress not in session and unable to immediately respond. The management tool therefore was the funding of the Army [who's funding is explicitly restricted in terms of years in the Constitution]. In the major conflicts which would happen since then 1812, Mexican-American War, ACW, Spanish American War and WWI would see the major demobilization of any standing army accumulated during the conflict. It was WWII and the situation with which America was presented that altered the dynamics. With it came a large standing military force committed worldwide facing contingencies that could at short notice demand the intervention of American interests. The President since has had a tool that the founders tried to avoid. The world just didn't let their posterity have that option. The one legitimate Constitutional tool Congress has to limit the Executive is to cut the size and funding of the force available to commit to any action. Congress understands that is a nuke handgrenade, taking out the thrower and target alike. No one has the balls to come up with a Constitutional amendment to alter the relationship. So every one bitches and passes meaningless legislation that does nothing but grant the Judiciary even more power in a process that the founders would be shocked at. The real choice is to fundamentally choose in this world to be part of the total process and therefore keep plodding along with the tools we have, or go isolationist and simply try to ride out the storm that will follow. To be the master of one's fate or the victim of others actions. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-07-08 13:47 |
| #5 No president will alloiw this to happen Neither should the people. |
| Posted by: sexist pig 2008-07-08 13:43 |
| #4 The real problem here is that Congress actually wants to complain about the use, the success, the rules, the barriers to, the requirements for the use of military force but does not want to ever take responsibility for actually authorizing it. Congress will acknowledge that they authorized the war. Under false pretenses, if the war is unpopular. What they want, and what the founders specifically and explicitly denied them is a voice in conducting war. They had seen war conducted this way during the Rev olution and they were not about to allow the mistake to be repeated. So Congress gets to start wars and end them, but the President gets to fight them. And congress will be unhappy until the constitution is overturned. No president will alloiw this to happen. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-07-08 13:04 |
| #3 For the record, what is commonly called the War Powers Resolution is actually an act of Congress passed over the veto of Nixon. It requires consultation with Congress before military action and every President has done this. It also requires an authorization before 60 days has passed since military force was used. The real problem here is that Congress actually wants to complain about the use, the success, the rules, the barriers to, the requirements for the use of military force but does not want to ever take responsibility for actually authorizing it. Legislation can be crafted to make it appear to correct the problems with the 1973 act (which has never been tested in the Supreme Court and which may be unconstitutional), but it won't fix the "don't blame me, I'm just here to complain" attitude of legislators However, |
| Posted by: mhw 2008-07-08 12:52 |
| #2 Warren Christopher is a CHI-COM AGENT. and he's a f'n lawyer... |
| Posted by: RD 2008-07-08 12:37 |
| #1 Warren Christopher's not dead? He sure did look it. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-07-08 12:30 |