Congress and the White House have been wrangling for generations over
control of the military during hostilities that fall short of all-out
war. The Constitution gives Congress sole power to declare war, but it
has done so only five times: the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American
War, and the two world wars. Meanwhile, presidents acting in their constitutional
capacity of commander in chief have sent Americans into battle more than
100 times in the absence of a formal declaration of war.
We are in one of those situations again. On. Sept. 14, Congress overwhelmingly
authorized President Bush to use "all necessary and appropriate force"
against the nations, groups, and individuals responsible for the Sept.
11 attacks on America. But Bush has vowed to wage a much broader war against
terrorism. For the President, the challenge is to sustain long-term congressional
support for an entirely new kind of war against a shadowy, stateless enemy.
President Bush would be wise to find ways to make Congress a partner and
stakeholder in the planning and conduct of this war.
Congress passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, over President Nixon's
veto, as a check on presidential war-making authority. Under it, whenever
a president uses military force outside a declaration of war, he must
immediately inform Congress. And if Congress fails to give its consent
to the deployment, the president must withdraw the troops in 60 to 90
days. Since the law's enactment, every single president has argued that
it unconstitutionally infringes on his authority as commander in chief,
and all have defended their right to initiate military action on their
own. Some experts question whether the law creates the best way of ensuring
congressional participation in decisions about use of force. Proposals
to amend or even repeal the War Powers Resolution have been floated over
the years, but none has been enacted.
The coherence of U.S. policy during hostilities depends on Congress and
the executive branch working together. Yet history shows that presidents
often treat Congress as a hindrance rather than as a partner during such
times. They tend to seek congressional input on foreign and national security
issues only after crises erupt, rather than on an ongoing basis. If they
sought input regularly, they could rely on greater congressional support
when war clouds gather.
In the days and months ahead, Congress and the President will face difficult
decisions that could affect the lives of millions of Americans. Both sides
should work to improve policy consultation and coordination without unduly
burdening the commander in chief's freedom of action.
A recent report by the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century,
co-chaired by former Sens. Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, could point the
way. The panel recommended the creation of a permanent congressional consultative
group made up of leaders of both parties in the House and Senate and the
chairmen and ranking minority members of the main committees involved
in national security and foreign policy. The group would meet regularly
with representatives of the executive branch and with the president on
an emergency basis whenever he considers military action abroad or deals
with a foreign policy crisis.
In such an environment, presidents would be more disposed to cooperate
with Congress, and Congress would be less disposed to invoke the War Powers
Resolution's timetables and notification requirements. Presidents would
benefit from the experience of key congressional leaders. And lawmakers
would get vital information at the most critical decision point: before
troops are deployed. This would help them build wise policy and rally
bipartisan support for difficult operations once forces have been deployed.
Finally, consultations would be a two-way street. A president upset by
congressional leaks could curtail exchanges of information or even temporarily
suspend the meetings. Similarly, a congressional panel that felt it was
being stonewalled could muster formidable opposition to a president's
military operation, perhaps enough to cut off its funding.
Conflict in the modern era may be rendering formal declarations of war
obsolete. Still, the judgment of Congress must be more than an afterthought
in foreign policy. America's founders wisely introduced checks and balances
into the nation's design to keep any single branch of government from
dominating the others. This healthy tension should be restored to, not
removed from, the realm of national security and foreign policy.
