The unsettling decision last month by President Donald Trump to embark on a mission against Iranian nuclear facilities raised eyebrows among numerous Democrats and a handful of Republicans. The US’s widely shared conviction is that Iran should refrain from creating nuclear weapons, yet – did siding with Israel to strike Iran truly represent the most effective approach? Could such aggressions potentially lead to a broader conflict in the Middle East? And, crucially, should this decision have involved Congress? The balancing act between the president’s role as the military’s commander in chief and Congress’s war declaration prerogative, as defined in our Constitution, always sparks debates.
This age-old jerk of war pertaining to the involvement of the Congress and the autonomous actions of the President aimed at national security seems inseparable from the American political scene. In 1973, an attempt to address this contentious issue came in the form of the War Powers Act. Motivated by the escalation of the Vietnam War, this Act laid down a mandate for presidents to hold consultations with Congress before taking the military into a battle and provided Congress the power to overrule the president’s actions thereafter.
The Act, which was passed despite President Richard Nixon’s veto, garnered support from both Democrats and Republicans. However, the following years witnessed presidents belonging to both parties often brushing the law aside and, frequently dismissing the constraints on their power imposed by the Act as unconstitutional. The Act’s vague language adds to the problem as it does not specify the precise circumstances that demand congressional action.
Congress, till now, has scarcely pushed back against this issue, and the courts have usually refrained from stepping in. This has left in place a War Powers Act which, though part of the law of the land, has had little impact on how our leaders behave in practice. Consequently, the U.S. has been drawn into numerous undeclared wars and military interventions that do not necessarily echo the opinions of the American people.
In spite of possessing the power to declare wars, Congress has not made a formal declaration since WWII. However, the U.S. has been involved in wars like the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, both undeclared and taking nearly 100,000 American lives. Post-Vietnam, military campaigns were undertaken in countries like Panama, Grenada, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and a number of others.
These military operations have been mixed in nature, with presidents at times seeking and receiving Congress’s mandate, and other times bypassing it altogether. An endeavor made about two decades back meant to rectify this problem was initiated by the bipartisan National War Powers Commission. A unanimous approval gave rise to a proposal that had the potential to break this impasse.
The proposed plan would have obligated the president to liaise with a select group of both party’s legislators before adopting military action that would exceed a week, barring a few exceptions. A 30-day window would then be provided to Congress to express either their approval or disapproval in a recorded manner. The creation of a permanent inter-committee of Congress to oversee decisions related to war powers would also be necessitated.
The introduction of the War Powers Consultation Act followed. However, despite its potential to bring about a remarkable change, it could not secure passage. Though it fell short of perfection and failed to address the constitutional questions surrounding the limits of presidential and congressional powers – a matter that can only be settled by the courts – it did propose an enhanced clarity concerning subsequent actions when military command is issued by the president.
Looked at from broader perspective, it would foster a greater level of conversation between the President and Congress on important military decisions. While the question of its efficacy remains, given the past oversight of similar laws, it is projected that due to its stringent requirements, this law might be harder to overlook. The recent attacks on Iran might be over, but their implications underline a lasting rationale.
When it involves the discussion around war’s impending possibilities, the American citizenry deserves more than a disregarded and ineffective law in operation. The very question of calling our servicemen and servicewomen to arms stands as the most momentous decision our government can arrive at. The American populace is entitled to the assurance that their views will find a representation in Congress while making such pivotal decisions, bearing the potential to tip the scale between life and death.