[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Guest Commentary July 1, 2002
Connecting the Dots on Iraq
The Honorable Robert Byrd
For months, the President has been sending signals that U.S. efforts to topple Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq will involve direct military action. In his State of the Union address on January 29, 2002, the President listed Iraq as a member of an "axis of evil" that seeks to attack the United States with acts of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The President punctuated his bold words with a warning that he "will not wait on events, while dangers gather," and that "the United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."
That is saber rattling. This saber rattling prompted many questions for the American public, for Members of Congress, and for our allies. The question being: Will we invade Iraq? When will it happen? Will the United States go it alone? These are some of the questions. ...
Free Newsletter
Get the scoop on important legislation, Congressional action, election updates, hard-hitting political commentary, the latest developments in the War on Terror...and more! Just enter your email address below.
Privacy: Your name and email address will be confidential - never rented, never sold.
Saddam Hussein has now had 11 years since the end of the gulf war to rebuild his war machine. New military action against Iraq would be costly in terms of national treasure and blood. It is exactly because of these kinds of considerations that the Constitution vests in Congress the authority to declare war, and the responsibility to finance military action.
We have heard Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle express their support for military operations against Iraq. The case has yet to be argued, at least in any serious detail, or in open debate before the people. Bold talk of chasing down evildoers, stirring patriotic words, expressions of support for our men and women in uniform, these all have an important place in our national life, but the American people deserve to hear why we need to be an aggressor, why we need to risk the lives of their sons and daughters, why we need to take preemptive action against Iraq.
Now, perhaps we should do so. I am not saying we should not, but I am saying that Congress needs to know about this, and the American people need to have more than just patriotic expressions with visual backup, assemblies and/or words.
If it is the President's intent to oust Saddam Hussein, he would be well advised to obtain the support of the American people, and that would involve seeking congressional authorization to use military force.
I very well understand there are some military actions that we must take on virtually a moment's notice in the interest of protecting this Nation and its people, and the Commander in Chief has that inherent authority under the Constitution. But there comes a time when the Commander in Chief still needs to level with the American people and Congress.
We saw what happened in the case of the war in Vietnam when the support of the people back home declined, when the support of the American people began to go away from pursuing the Vietnam war. That support of the American people is necessary, and that support is expressed in many cases by their elected Representatives in both Houses of Congress. Yet this administration persists in an unwise and dangerous effort to keep the public largely in the dark.
I have to repeat to the administration time and time again, the legislative branch is not a subordinate body. It is not a subordinate department. It is not subordinate to the executive branch. It is an equal branch of the Government. So I think the administration, in embracing secrecy so much and so deliberately, is acting unwisely. It makes no sense. It is dangerous.
We have all seen the folly of military missions launched and maintained without sufficient support of the people. Time and again history has demonstrated that in a democratic republic such as the United States, the sustained support of the people is essential for the success of any long-term military mission.
I recall all too well the nightmare of Vietnam. I remember all too well how Congress, without sufficient information and debate, approved military action in that conflict. I recall all too well the antiwar protests, the demonstrations, the campus riots, the tragic deaths at Kent State, as well as the resignation of a President and a Vice President. I remember all too well the gruesome daily body counts in Vietnam. ...
We have to depend upon the leadership of the Senate and both sides of the aisle to insist that the Senate be informed. We also have to depend on the leadership of the other body on both sides of the aisle to insist on these things. We represent the American people. They send us here. No President sends me here. No President can send me home. No President sends the distinguished Senator from Nebraska here. No President can send him home. He comes here by virtue of the people of his State. They vote to send him, and he is here to represent them. He is not here to represent a President. ...
I have heard a lot of talk about the need for this country to speak with one voice on matters of war and peace. Debate on such important issues, say these people, might reveal differences in views on how we ought to act. Our opponents would revel in our discord and the President would lose credibility as he went toe to toe with our enemies. It is as though some think that Congress is an impediment to the interests of this country. ...
I don't think debate is a weakness. Debate is our strength. Debate shows that we are a nation of laws, not of men. It shows that no man, no king -- we do not have a king in this country. We have some people who are apparently monarchists. I think we have some in [the Senate] Chamber who are sometimes monarchists when it comes to voting. They want to support the executive branch. The executive branch will take care of itself. Remember that, may I say to the young pages.
There are three branches of Government: The judicial branch -- it will always uphold the prerogatives of the judicial branch, the executive branch -- it will always uphold the prerogatives of the executive branch, and grab for more; but it is here in the legislative branch that sometimes half, or a large portion, of the membership does not speak for the prerogatives of the legislative branch under this Constitution; they speak for the prerogatives of the executive branch.
"We must support the Commander in Chief," they say. "We must support the Commander in Chief." But, this Commander in Chief is only here for four years. I have served with eleven Commanders in Chief. We have Commanders in Chief, but we do not have to support the Commander in Chief. I don't care if he is a Democrat. I don't have to support the Commander in Chief. And I sometimes don't, even if he is a Democrat.
Well, debate shows that we are a nation of laws and that no man -- neither king nor Commander in Chief -- has the right to send us to war by virtue of his decision alone.
This Republic -- not this democracy. ...We pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic -- not "the democracy." The city-states in the time of Athens could have democracies. My little town of Sophia, with about 1,180 persons, could be a democracy. It is small enough. All the people could come together and they could speak for all the people, but not in this great country of 280 million people. This is a republic. We ought to get in the habit of speaking of it as a republic.
We are a model to the world in this respect. By debating and voting on issues of war and peace, Congress is able to express the will of the American people and galvanize support for what could be a costly conflict. Debate and well-meaning disagreement on important issues do not weaken the resolve of the American people. It is secret motives -- here is where problems begin -- secret motives, clandestine plotting, and lack of confidence in the public that are the swift solvent of our national morale.
If it is the path that this Nation is to take, President Bush ought to present his case to Congress before we must use military force to overthrow Saddam Hussein. That is why the Congress must ask important questions. At least there are some leaders in both Houses, in both parties, who need to be taken into these secrets.
That is why the Congress must ask important questions, including if we are successful in getting rid of the authoritarian who is now in power in Iraq, who will take his place? Have we covertly hand picked a leader for the future of Iraq? If so, who is he? Once such a military operation is undertaken, how will we know when the mission is accomplished?
Let there be no doubt, from what I now know and understand, I would support a change in regimes in Iraq. I suppose every Member of this body would probably do that. There is no doubt in my mind about the serious and continuing danger that Iraq poses to the stability of the Persian Gulf region.
Saddam Hussein has sought to build weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. His military regularly attempts to shoot down our fighter planes that patrol the No Fly Zones over Iraq. He has worked to heighten the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. He has promoted the starvation of Iraqi children so that he and his cabal can live in palaces. Saddam Hussein is a scourge on the people of Iraq and a menace to peace. We know that. I know these things. I wasn't exactly born yesterday. But it is the duty of Congress to ask questions. Members of Congress need not be intimidated by polls. We are expected to ask questions.
It is the duty of Congress to ask questions so that we, the people's branch of government, and as a result, the American people, will know what we may be getting ourselves into. It may be that the President already has answers to these questions about Iraq, and that we might awake one morning to see those answers printed in the morning newspaper. As we learned all too well in Korea, Vietnam, and Somalia, it is dangerous to present Congress and the American people with a fait accompli -- that is a dangerous thing to do, no matter what the polls say. Those polls can drop suddenly -- present Congress and the American people with a fait accompli of important matters on foreign affairs.
When the Administration is asking the American people to send their sons and daughters into harm's way, knowing that some will never return, it is essential that Congress know more, not less, about the Administration's planned course of action. Congress must not be left to connect dots!
In the aftermath of the carnage and turmoil of the Vietnam war, Congress approved the War Powers Resolution, that provided procedures for Congress and the President to participate in decisions to send U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities. Section 4(a)(1) required the President to report to Congress any introduction of U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities. Section 3 requires that the "President in every possible instance shall; consult with Congress before introducing" U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities.
In face of this Congressional resolution, this administration refuses to consult with anyone outside its own inner circle -- well, let its own inner circle provide the money when the time comes -- anyone outside its own inner circle about what appears to be its plan for imminent hostilities. This Administration convenes meetings of its trusted few in little underground rooms, while sending decoy envoys to meet with Congress and members of the press, and the public.
I have not seen such Executive arrogance and secrecy since the Nixon Administration, and we all know what happened to that group.
I remember too well the Executive arrogance and extreme secrecy that lead to the Iran-Contra scandal. Selling weapons to a terrorist nation in exchange for hostages, and using that money to finance an illegal war in Central America. What a great plan that was! I guess I can understand why the Reagan Administration did not want to tell Congress about that foreign policy adventure.
I have no doubt there are some within this Administration who are preparing to carry out some sort of attack against Iraq. Well, that's all right. We have to make plans before we do things. I am not sure who they are, but I am connecting the dots, and I am concerned about the picture that is developing.
If the President needs to take decisive military action to prevent the imminent loss of American lives, he will receive broad support. But if this country is moving methodically and deliberately toward some kind of showdown with Iraq, Congress is entitled to good-faith consultations from the executive branch. We must consider and debate whether we should use military force against Saddam Hussein. And, barring the most exceptional of circumstances, Congress must vote to authorize the President to use military force against Iraq prior to the outbreak of hostilities if, after appropriate debate and consideration, Congress comes to that conclusion.
As [former] Senator [Ernest] Gruening [D-Alaska] pointed out, it is the role of the Senate to advise and consent in foreign policy. And those words did not originate with Senator Gruening. Read the Constitution.
As the War Powers Resolution points out, it is the role of Congress to be active participants in foreign affairs, and certainly such adventures as making war.
So, as we proceed, let us connect the dots.
As the Constitution demands, it is the role of Congress to declare war. Yes, we have a Commander in Chief. But what Army and what Navy does he have to command if Congress does not provide the money?
When the President is ready to present his case to Congress, I am ready to listen. But I think we all must be tired of trying to connect dots in the dark.
Robert Byrd, a Democrat, is a U.S. Senator from West Virginia. The above commentary has been adapted from a speech Sen. Byrd delivered on the floor of the Senate, June 28, 2002. To contact him, Click Here.
The above column has been distributed by PoliticsOL.com.
