Wartime Requires Political Bravery

As of Sunday, July 3, 2011

I do not know the exact temperature, but Philadelphia must have been both hot and uncomfortable on Aug. 17, 1787, when the Constitutional Convention considered whether to change a draft which gave Congress the power to "make war" and insert congressional authority to "declare war."

Roger Sherman thought the change would give the president the power to repel an attack, but not start a conflict, thus giving him more power. Virginia's George Mason thought it would give the president less power, "clogging rather than facilitating war."

It was at that point in time that Pierce Butler, of South Carolina, wanted to scrap the whole thing and give all war powers to the president. Large legislatures were too slow and always taking a recess, Mr. Pinckney argued. We needed to have a swift response to attack, according to James Madison.

When the convention voted, only two things were clear: (1) The idea to give all war powers to the president was denounced as contrary to the theory of a republic; and (2) each for his own reason, none agreeing with the other but with North Carolina's William Blount agreeing with the majority, Article 1 Section 8, Clause 11 was approved, giving Congress the power to "declare war."

What can be derived from the Constitutional Convention and our history afterward - from the decision of John Adams in 1798 to make "quasi-war" on France to President George W. Bush's decision to engage in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan - is that war is not the sole province of the president or the Congress.

It is, as the Founding Fathers realized, a collaborative effort between the two. To the extent that the president goes to war without the agreement of Congress, the most important element of a democracy at war is compromised: public support.

Indeed, this was understood by almost every president who ordered our troops into battle. When President Johnson ordered our all-out war in Vietnam, he first went to Congress for full authorization. Before Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush went to war, they did the same.

For the latter two, success in Congress was by no means certain. But each one of these presidents knew that no democracy will stand for a long war that lacks support of the people whom Congress represents.

In 1973, with Vietnam collapsing under a wave of American public discontent, the War Powers Resolution was passed. It was not an act or law. The president would have vetoed that. It was simply a way for the Congress to assert the role of the houses of the people when the preservation of life and liberty require the sacrifice of death.

In short, in order to prosecute a war, we require of the president political bravery similar to the bravery of the men and women he sends into battle. In recent years, both Presidents Bush exhibited that bravery.

Neither one was very popular in the polls prior to the war. Yet each believed that the national security of the United States required an expeditionary force to secure the peace on foreign shores. Each worked with members of both parties, many of whom despised his domestic politics. Each persuaded his political enemies that the cause was just and the war was necessary, convincing them to place their country ahead of their political ideology.

Now Barack Obama has decided to take for himself the total power to make war. By placing our Navy and airmen into the anti-aircraft flak over Tripoli, he has refused to take the political risk that was within the character of both Bush presidents. He has risked the public consensus necessary for a democracy to pursue a foreign war.

When reading the Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, it is apparent that our Founding Fathers feared concentrated power. They were afraid that unchecked power would result in unnecessary or unpopular wars from which there was no exit strategy. As stated by Connecticut delegate Oliver Ellsworth that summer of 1787, "War is a simple and overt declaration." The making of peace, he argued, was "intricate" and difficult. Our Founding Fathers knew that it was easier to begin a war than end one. They were so concerned about war that they did not leave it to the whim of a president or the desire of a Congress. They expected their presidents to be as brave as their soldiers and seek approval of a reluctant population before sending their children to fight and die.

We are now engaged in a war in Libya, unapproved by the representatives of the people. President Obama is supposed to be our leader, but he does not possess the political courage to convince Congress that his cause is just and our security requires the risk of our national treasure.

His lack of statesmanship on this matter means that our enemies can exploit our disunity and can defeat our great nation by weakening our resolve to fight. This was exactly the fear well over two centuries past.

War by the army of a democracy without the declared support of the people is a recipe for defeat.

Robert M. Levy is chairman of the Moore County Republican party. Contact him at Law52@prodigy.net.

More like this story

dustyrhoades 1 year, 10 months ago

I agree with Mr. Levey that the President has overstepped his bounds on this matter.

But I'm sure the chairman of the Moore County Republican Party should remember that GOP heroes like Donald Rumsfeld have referred to the War Powers Act as being of "questionable and still untested constitutionality" and that it 'undercut[s] the President's ability to convince troublemakers of America's staying power." (Donald Rumsfeld Known and Unknown, Chapter One). Ronald Reagan never asked for congressional approval of engagements in El Salvador (where "advisers'" were actually on the ground) and Honduras (supposedly "maneuvers' involving thousands of US troops, some of whom engaged in "Support" of Honduran troops against the Sandinista government of Nicaragua). . Congress was out of session during George H.W. Bush’s invasion of Panama but no one really made a fuss about it or invoked the WPR.

Where was the GOP then?

Bet I'll wait a long time for any answer to that question.

TreadLightly 1 year, 10 months ago

You are RIGHT, Dusty. I suspect that they were wherever the Dems are in this Obama debacle. I think the legal/practical aspects are cumbersome at best, no matter which party is taking short cuts.

dustyrhoades 1 year, 10 months ago

There is something with liberals that cannot criticize their leader without a qualifying statement - well others did it.

Whereas wingnuts refuse to acknowledge any criticism of their leaders at all, preferring instead to go 'well a Democrat did something like it."

BTW, you're wrong on Honduras. http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32267.html#_1_19

"The first contingent of U.S. troops landed in Honduras on August 8, 1983, and the series of ground and ocean exercises continued for several years, involving thousands of ground troops plus warships and fighter planes."

JeremyG 1 year, 10 months ago

The wars of the last decade will leave the lasting legacy of screwing the generations to come as trillions were spent on the waste of blood and treasure that is nationbuilding. These trillions could have gone to reparing and modernizing America's crumbling infrastructure, education, and bold new innovation. Instead this money is forever lost to the sands of the Middle East. We could not have given Al Qaeda a better gift than grinding ourselves down in seemingly endless war. Between what the Boomers have left (especially in recent years) and the insolvency to come "Generation Screwed" would be the appropriate term for future Americans. In the words of a good friend it is likely they won't forget to pull up the ladder on the way out.

robertlevy 1 year, 10 months ago

We need to support those membersof Congress like Howard Coble who support a meaningful role of Ccongress in the decision to make war. This is not just because these representatives come from one party or another, but because they support Our Constitution the way the Founders intended

AmericanModerator 1 year, 10 months ago

Mr. Levy, When you sanctify Bush Jr's "character" in going to Congress before the Iraq war you forget to mention that he and several of his cabinet heads lied, yes outright lied, to the Congress and the American people about the threat that Iraq represented and used fabricated "intelligence" and examples about that threat, or lack of it. Additionally, they engaged in character assassination of anyone disagreeing with them. This was certainly an unethical use of power and likely illegal as well. When Mr Bush dressed up in military regalia (something no president has done since Washington during wartime) to land on an aircraft carrier and announce "mission accomplished" we'd suffered about 300 KIAs. Eight years and 15 times more KIAs, 26,000 wounded, and over 100,000 Iraqi dead we are only now getting out in an orderly fashion. I was in northern Iraq when W pulled that carrier landing stunt and can tell you when we saw it on CNN we were befuddled. Mr Bush took advantage of a scared American public and a weak and highly partisan (Republican) Congress to sneak in something that had nothing at all to do with 9/11 and ultimately distracted and diverted resources from the relevant war in Afghanistan. If Congress had had the guts then to demand better information and protect their Constitutional role we'd not have the complications and debate over what todo in Afghanistan that we have today. Don't dare put W's actions in Iraq up as an example of risk and character.

robertlevy 1 year, 10 months ago

@AmericanModerator. Your description sounds like Franklin Roosevelt justifying hostilities in the North Atlantic when he claimed The Ruben James was "attacked". He lied looking directly into the news reel cameras more sincerely than Bill Clinton denying infidelity. On the other hand Bush believed what he said to be true as did Clinton who made similar statements on the subject of Iraq. The biggest Presidential liars were Roosevelt, Eisenhower ( on the U-2 incident not involving any rock band) , lyndonJohnson , and Bill Clinton.: Democrats 3, Republicans 1 and Eisenhower at least apologized. Neither Johnson nor Roosevelt did. And Clinton still seems to mock his own conduct by officiating at weddings like that of his wife's assistant, now Ms. Anthony Weiner.

JimHeim 1 year, 10 months ago

LBJ lied about the reasons behind the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and W lied about the reasons behind the Iraq War resolution. That hardly makes the case for congressional consultation.

robertlevy 1 year, 10 months ago

Our job this 4th of July is to tell all politicians regardless of party that honesty is a requirement of office. We cannot tolerate Obama advocatng for a lifting of the debt ceiling after he voted against it anand advocating against gay marriage after he said he supported it and then claiming that he is evolving". Sometimes I believe that our leaders are convinced that thfe public "can't handle the truth".It is this type of arrogance that we must resolve to end. We must elect people that respect democracy and the opinion of all the electorate. That must be our resolve on thhis Independence Day