The vital voice of Congress in launching war
Americans are contending with almost daily shifts in how the Trump administration characterizes the war-slash-ceasefire with Iran that began Feb. 28. Yet just as important to this current Middle East struggle is a series of resolutions proposed in Congress to either end the conflict or seek approval by lawmakers to continue it.
On Tuesday 鈥� in its eighth such vote since strikes against Iran began 鈥� the Senate advanced a measure to debate a requirement of the 1973 War Powers Resolution that a president obtain congressional approval within 60 days of starting a conflict. The House is expected to vote shortly on a similar measure for the fourth time. The administration contends that the requirement is unnecessary, as a ceasefire announced April 7 reset the 60-day clock.
Many Capitol Hill observers believe it is unlikely that a resolution forcing the president to cease hostilities with Iran will pass either the House or Senate or, if it does, will bypass a presidential veto.
Does that mean the practice of raising multiple resolutions and lawmakers鈥� pronouncements on the issue is merely performative politicking?
Or is there value for Americans in continued deliberation, especially with a focus on the constitutional mandate that only Congress, not the commander in chief of the armed forces, can 鈥渄eclare War鈥� (as stated in Article 1, Section 8)?
In April, a bipartisan group of 63 former state and national officials urged Congress to 鈥渞eaffirm its role in matters of war and peace.鈥� They cited survey data that 66% of Americans support congressional approval for acts of war, and that 78% believe 鈥渃ongressional oversight strengthens our political system.鈥� They also noted a need to review the War Powers Resolution, which, they said, 鈥渁llows for ambiguous interpretations.鈥�
Democrat Tim Kaine of Virginia, a resolution sponsor in the Senate, has said he wants 鈥渢o ensure we have a real debate about whether it鈥檚 in our national interest to continue this war.鈥� But critics argue that presidents should have leeway to make real-time decisions to counter actual or anticipated threats. Requiring congressional approval before or even during such operations, they say, can compromise success or constrain presidents' decision-making options, at a cost to American lives and interests.
According to analyst Stephen Pomper, who served in both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations, leaders from both parties have ignored the 1973 war powers act for decades. There is a need, he wrote in Foreign Affairs, to restore 鈥渟crutiny or accountability鈥� when it comes to 鈥渢he most lethal and consequential actions the United States can take.鈥�
鈥淭he point of forcing the president to come to Congress isn鈥檛 to guarantee good outcomes,鈥� Mr. Pomper observed. 鈥淚t is to produce debate, insert a speedbump on the way to elective war, and require elected representatives to take a stand for which they will be judged at the ballot box.鈥�
Starting a hot war needs the cool consensus of Congress to ensure the broad support of Americans and to boost the morale of soldiers on the front lines. In the current armed standoff with Iran over its nuclear ambitions, U.S. lawmakers 鈥� elected by American citizens 鈥� are at the top of the political chain of command.
