The so-called War in Iraq

I am a conservative Republican, I have a Bush bumper sticker on my car and I have taken my kids to see the president on three different occasions this summer. I voted for Bush in 2000 and since I travel on business, next week I will proudly cast an absentee ballot to re-elect the president.

I preface this post with these comments because in Republican political circles — support for the so-called war in Iraq has become today's shibboleth.

I do not believe that President Bush lied. I support the Bush doctrine of pre-emption. I have a son preparing to enlist in the United States Marines next summer. I support the President of the United States, I support the troops.

My problem is that we as a nation have not fully supported the conflict in Iraq — the Congress of the United States has not declared war as required by Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

I saw Senator Sam Brownback (R, Kansas), member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on an interview show explaining how congress had authorized the war. Sen. Brownback pointed out that even the title of the Joint Resolution, H. J. Res 114 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 made it clear that the use of military force was authorized.

On the campaign trail, Senator John Kerry (D, Massachusetts), also a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, continually explains how his support for the resolution on Iraq was not an authorization for the use of forth. Sen. Kerry's point of view is a sharp contrast to Sen. Brownback's. Sen. Kerry asserts that the resolution was not actually an authorization to use force — rather it put the threat of force into play as a bargaining tool.

I think that both the Senators are wrong.

Sen. Kerry is wrong because the resolution he supported says:

H.J. RES 114 AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAIUNST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
SEC. 3.	AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a)	AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—
	(1)	defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
	(2)	enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

In debate on of H.J. 114 Sen. Kerry said:

"In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days — to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out."

President Bush did work with the United Nations Security Council on a new resolution. President Bush did act with our allies at our side to disarm Saddam Hussein. And Sen. Kerry was among the first to speak out. Kerry voted for the use of force and now he opposes it.

Sen. Brownback is also wrong. Congress explicitly authorised the use of force — they did not authorize a war. The resolution refers to the War Power Resolution, which was meant to limit the president's authority to deploy military forces in the absence of a declaration of war.

H.J. RES 114 AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAIUNST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
SEC. 3.	AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(c)	War Powers Resolution Requirements-
	(1)	SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
	(2)	APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

While Congress asserts that the War Powers Act (as the resolution is generally known) applies to Iraq it should be noted that the act has never been put to a Constitutional test and some scholars beleive that it is un-constitutional. Congress approved the use of force but by subjecting their resolution to the War Powers Act — they chose to specifically omit a declaration of war.

By failing to ask Congress for a declaration of war, President Bush has made successful completion of the conflict in Iraq more difficult. Without a declaration of war, Sen. Kerry can say he didn't really support the use of force. A declaration of war is unequivical. A declaration of war would have set the tone and stated that we as a nation — not just our President — have the resolve to see this through to completion.

Under a declaration of war emergency powers (like the Patriot Act) could be granted and then rescinded upon completion of hostilities. When Congress votes to declare war, it is really speaking with the people's voice. A good friend of mine asked me what would happen if Congress did not have the resolve to declare war. If John Kerry and others like him would have prevented a declaratiuon of war getting the necessary votes?

Our recent experience from Vietnam should make it clear. Without the consent of the governed, expressed in our society through the formal declaration of war, we do not go.