Trump, Iran and the ambiguous balance of the US declaring war

By

Opinion

January 10, 2020 - 10:23 AM

Surrounded by Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, as well as the Joint Chiefs of Staff, President Donald Trump delivers a statement in response to Iran firing more than a dozen ballistic missiles at two Iraqi military bases housing U.S. troops. (Pete Marovich/Abaca Press/TNS)

It was June 2011, and John Boehner was mad.

The House speaker told President Barack Obama that he would violate the War Powers Act if he didn’t seek congressional authorization to extend American military involvement in Libya. Obama had joined the NATO-led coalition in March, and the War Powers Act requires authorization after 90 days at the most.

Boehner previously had expressed skepticism of the War Powers Act, which Congress passed in 1973 over Richard Nixon’s veto. Nine years ago, however, the restive GOP House caucus demanded that Boehner send that letter to Obama.

Now a Republican president is defending an action — the killing of Iran Gen. Qassem Soleimani — against criticism from congressional Democrats. The partisan role reversal from nearly a decade ago underscores the dangerously ambiguous balance between Congress and the president when it comes to the military.

About 100,000-plus members of the U.S. armed forces have been killed in “wars” over the last 75 years without Congress declaring war. Another 200,000-plus have been wounded. Almost all of the casualties have come in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yet Congress last declared war against Japan and Germany in 1941. Three years of war in Korea began with a congressional resolution allowing a response to the invasion of South Korea. Eleven years of war in Vietnam began with a congressional resolution allowing a response to an attack on a U.S. naval vessel that never happened.

The flashpoint now is Iran and whether Soleimani’s death could lead to direct military conflict. Like presidents before him, Donald Trump has tried to stretch his powers as commander-in-chief as far as possible.

Example: Vice President Mike Pence made the laughable argument that the post-9/11 use of force authorization justified the drone strike on Soleimani. Pence claimed, against all evidence, that the Iranian general had aided some of the 9/11 hijackers.

Congress gave President George W. Bush that authorization. Obama used it to justify the many drone strikes against Al-Qaeda operatives that Bush’s administration called “targeted killings.”

Despite that authorization, Obama went to great lengths to justify the raid on Osama bin Laden in 2011. The New York Times reported that four national security lawyers worked in secret to build the case. Attorney General Eric Holder didn’t learn of the raid until the day before.

And for all the Democratic criticism of Trump’s failure to brief congressional leaders before the strike on Soleimani, Obama also didn’t want to alert Congress to the bin Laden raid. Then he learned that CIA Director Leon Panetta had done so on his own. Had the raid failed, Obama hoped that it never would become public.

There is general agreement that presidents can act quickly to repel threats. The key point with Soleimani is whether Trump had credible evidence of an “imminent” threat. Soleimani was not a stateless terrorist leader. He was a commander of a sovereign country, and Iran has called his death “an act of war.”

The wider, more important issue, is open-ended, unapproved military involvement. We’re in Afghanistan 18 years after dislodging the Taliban government that had shielded Al-Qaeda. We’re in Iraq 17 years after that misguided invasion began with a resolution sold on false pretenses.

In retrospect, presidents might wish there had been a congressional second opinion. Bush’s quagmire led to the creation of the Islamic State. Obama has called the failure to prepare for a Libya after Moammar Gadhafi the biggest mistake of his presidency. Libya remains in a civil war.

Similarly, Trump appears to have no plan for what happens next with Iran. He started the confrontation by withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal and imposing new sanctions. Having vowed on Twitter — in capital letters — that Iran never will obtain nuclear weapons, he may face the choice of attacking Iran to prevent the development of the weapons that Obama’s deal addressed.

It is past time for Congress to revisit the 9/11 use of force authorization. There also should be bipartisan support to review the War Powers Act.

This long period of war through resolution has worked out just once, when George H.W. Bush got in and out of Iraq in 1991. The Constitution and the country deserve better.

Related