Congress or Jellyfish when it comes to foreign policy? A historical case for the jellyfish perspective - By Cindy Powell Adapted from other smart ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Congress or Jellyfish when it comes to foreign policy? A historical case for the jellyfish perspective. By Cindy Powell Adapted from other smart people
2
War Powers, WWII and after
Overt Presidential military actions
• Truman and Korean War
• (Eisenhower) Kennedy/Johnson and Vietnam War
• Nixon and Vietnam War / Cambodian secret bombings
• Reagan
Troops to Lebanon
Invasion of Grenada
Air strikes against Libya
• Bush ‘41
Invasion of Panama
War against Iraq (Persian Gulf War) 1990-1
Somalia
• Clinton
Missile attacks on Baghdad
Somalia
Invasion of Haiti
Bosnia
Yugoslavia/Serbia-Kosovo War
Missile attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan
• Bush ‘43
Afghanistan
Iraq
What’s next? Iran? Is this guy crazy like a fox or just crazy?
• Most of these military actions did not receive prior Congressional approval
• In none was a formal declaration of war made by Congress
• In every case, the decision to make war was initiated by Presidential actions.
The point:
It’s not that none of these actions were necessary, or wise, or right;
but that the intentional subversion of clearly specified Constitutional powers
undermines not only the Constitution in specific cases but the very idea of constitutional,
or limited government.
Citizens are encouraged to accept, even embrace, government that acts without their
authorization, and without the explicit, and well-considered, authorization of their
representatives.
3
This is modern imperial “democracy”
• Not an absolute dictatorship, or autocracy
• President is still elected, and responds quickly to significant changes in public
opinion, but Presidents have acquired vast institutional resources for shaping and
controlling that opinion.
We must seriously question whether “American public opinion” actually constitutes
the independent judgment of the people themselves, or a combination of some
independent judgment, and a great deal of shaped belief or even wholly the opinions of
the President, regurgitated by a well-trained population.
Again, we can argue the merits of any particular war or policy, but process is key to examining
this power.
• This process is anything but democratic, or even republican.
• It is an elite-led, President-dominated process, in which public opinion is manufactured
by the elites, not responded to by them.
1. Truman
• Troops kept mobilized by Truman after WWII, despite the cessation
of hostilities.
• Congressional approval not sought or given.
A. Korean War
• North Korea attacks South Korea, June 1950. Truman sought U.N.
Resolution allowing U.N. military response but sent in U.S. air
support before resolution even passed. He never sought
Congressional approval for Korean War; instead, called it a U.N.
“police action.”
B. Cold War anti-communism trumped most members’ defense of Congressional powers.
In essence, the Cold War was more important than Constitutional preservation.
C. Truman also sent U.S. troops to Europe, w/o Congressional
approval, including the USS Missouri into the Mediterranean in
1946 when he was sick of “babying the Soviets.” Truman said that
“unless Russia is faced with an iron fist and strong language,
another war is in the making." Guess what nation was at the
fulcrum of this crisis? Iran.
Of course Congress was in on approving the $400 million aid
package to Greece and Turkey, establishing the buying power that
could also curb communism.
4
2. Johnson
A. Vietnam War – 1964
• July 30 and 31: US covert operations
in N. Vietnam
• August 2 and 4: N. Vietnamese attack
U.S. ships in Gulf of Tonkin
(one attack occurred; the other
probably is questionable)—if you
haven’t see it, see The Fog of War.
• Johnson calls for Gulf of Tonkin
Resolution, authorizing U.S. military
action against the N. Vietnamese.
• Congress: no independent investigation
of President’s claims. House passed Gulf
of Tonkin Treaty by unanimous vote; in
Senate, only 2 opposed. And you thought
spineless Congresses were a 21st Century
creation!
• Congressional members spoke of President as Leader of the Nation and viewed
President as having power to conduct foreign policy without Congressional oversight.
• Instead of checks and balances, and shared power in foreign policy making
-- as the Constitution clearly prescribes –Congress advocated nonpartisan/bipartisan
acquiescence to Presidential decisions.
• Congress’s role was merely to “advise” the President.
Congress as Lap dog or Watch dog during difficult times: what would you want?
**Problem: nation had been operating under constant sense of crisis since 1940—and that
produced real or perceived need for executive independence. This has pressured
Congress to suspend doubts and rally around any President. Congress was “over-awed by
the cult of executive expertise.” Democrats are also afraid of looking “soft on Commies”
and now “soft on terrorists.” The result? Jellyfish
5
Nixon
War Powers Act (1973)
House version: gave President blank check for 4
months. Senate version: much more limited.
• repel armed direct attack on U.S., or forestall
imminent attack
Envisioned the Presidential use of War Powers as:
• repel armed attack on U.S. forces outside
U.S., or forestall imminent attack
• rescue endangered U.S. citizens abroad
only 30 days before Congressional
authorization was required.
War Powers final version:
• President may use armed force for up to 90 days w/o seeking or obtaining Congressional
approval.
• War powers: described as Congress taking back its role in war making. But, in fact it
“sanctions a scope of independent presidential power that would have astonished the
framers” of the Constitution. “The president ended up with a green light to use force
anywhere in the world, for whatever reason, without ever seeking congressional
authority.” Not really their intent, but the final result. Why? It put into law a practice
that really extended far beyond the Constitution.
• The mockery of “consult and confer”
• So, on the surface, the document that was to limit the powers of the President actually
gave legal sanction to unilateral Presidential war making power.
• Nixon vetoed it (because he didn’t want any constraints)
• Congress overrode his veto (Democrats wanted to give Nixon a defeat)
Reagan
Lebanon: peacekeeping mission
• assist in withdrawal of PLO from Lebanon
• formation of new government in Lebanon
• war broke out between Lebanese factions, Israel,
PLO, Syria
Congress started clock on War Powers, but timed it
long enough to go beyond 1984 election-- only time
Congress has ever started the clock!!
• U.S. embassy personnel killed in embassy bombing
• U.S. marines killed in barracks bombing
Reagan sent in U.S. ships, planes to strike back
Grenada: Reagan in and out before Congress started the
60-90 day clock
Libya: U.S. trades fire with Libyan forces in
Mediterranean; U.S. soldier killed in disco bombing in W.
Germany. U.S. bombs Libya in response
• Reagan claims he had to respond to Quadafi; Congress failed to respond.
6
Iran-Contra (Lest we forget)
• Reagan administration officials sold arms to Iran in exchange for prisoner releases
(something Reagan had told the American people he’d never do). They used the
proceeds to fund Nicaraguan contras (resistance fighters against communist
regime of Daniel Ortega).
• Congress has clearly prohibited any U.S. funding of contras
Boland Amendment, 1985
• Reagan signed the bill; no administration challenge to it. Yet at same time,
administration was arranging for private citizens and foreign governments to
funnel money to contras!
• Reagan Administration argued that President could conduct foreign policy,
even if funds weren’t appropriated for it; claimed they could use private funds,
and if they did so, they did not have to account to Congress for this activity.
• This implies the creation of a totally extra-Constitutional government, funded by
other governments, rife for quid pro quo relationships.
• In terms of good reasons for impeachment—this is a doosie! Oliver North,
though, destroyed evidence and took the fall like a good soldier does for the
Commander in Chief.
• George H.W. Bush was V.P.; Cheney and Powell worked within administration
George H.W. Bush
A. Panama, Dec. 1989 – 11,000 troops join 13,000 already in Panama, there to remove Manuel
Noriega and put back elected officials Noriega had removed. US justifications for the action:
• defend U.S. citizens
• combat drug trafficking
(then why not invade Mexico, Colombia, Turkey,
etc.?)
The point is---Congress made no response to Panama invasion,
tacitly accepting it as legitimate.
7
B. Iraq and Persian Gulf War
Bush uses U.N. Security Council Resolution authorizing military action against Iraq as cover for
not seeking Congressional approval.
Bush argument: U.N. charter does not require or allow countries to get legislative approval.
Fact is: U.N. charter only authorizes countries to participate in U.N. actions; it
does not and cannot obligate them to participate. That decision is up to
each member nation and its constitutional process; so, it does allow
Congressional approval, and Congress asserted this role when Charter was
originally approved.
**So Bush got approval of international community, through U.N. resolutions, but rejected
argument that he needed any kind of Congressional approval.
[Side note: If a Democrat had argued this to a Republican Congress, the Republicans would
have rightly screamed at the destruction of U.S. sovereignty implied in the President’s unilateral
decision to abide by a U.N. resolution. But jellyfish float until a wave hits them. That wave was
public opinion. . .]
• Eventually, feeling political pressure, and growing opposition to possible war, Bush then
sought Congressional approval. He got it.
o House approved 250-183; Senate 52-47
• Bush later defended his position, arguing that he would have gone ahead, even without
Congressional approval of the U.N. resolutions, but getting Congress in on it was the
“right” thing to do.
• So, all that mattered was his own personal interpretation of what the Constitution allows.
I’m not just picking on Republicans, Clinton used the exact same phrase-- “right thing to
do” in Haiti and Bosnia.
8
Clinton – use of force for political purposes: popularity & re-election
A. Somalia: Clinton asserts right to independence, but Congress moves to curtail, and Clinton
pulled back only after American casualties.
B. Haiti – A planned invasion (ah, the old days. . .)
• Clinton asserts his Constitutional power to “do the right thing”
regardless of Congress, or even public opinion (strongly opposed.)
• Congress: debate over whether President is unlimited or maybe slightly limited.
But in the course of the debate, virtually no one defends Congress’s real historical
role as the war-declaring branch.
• Clinton asserted that he needed to be able to go forward with war in Haiti to show
that “we” could be trusted to keep “our” word. Who is “we”? Not Congress, not
the American people--only him and his administration. He was the one under
scrutiny.
C. Bosnia – Clinton asks for Congressional “support” for air strikes, then ground troops
• Senate Maj. Leader Bob Dole, Presidential candidate acquiesced to Clinton’s
request as did other Republican Presidential candidates. A few senators
questioned Clinton’s right to do whatever he wanted—it was a Republican-
controlled Congress after all. Even so, they approved, with Bosnian actions with
“reservations.”
D. Missile attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan – No congressional approval sought nor delivered.
E. Air strikes/ missile attacks on Iraq
• Justification: “when you abuse your own people, you must pay a price.” Note
that this does not even base act on defense of American lives. We are to a point
by the Clinton Administration where the President can attack a country because it
abuses its own people. Perhaps Bush just followed the leader.
• February 1998 – Madeleine Albright defends Clinton’s ordered attacks on Iraq.
Albright, though, was opposed to the Vietnam War. The difference? How could
she defend attacks on Iraq when she opposed Vietnam War? Her reply: “that was
a war, this is using military force.” (can’t you just wait to read 1984?)9
*The point--
a. what’s the difference between a war and use of military force???
b. makes a mockery of language
c. President can use any military force, anywhere he sees fit, as long as this isn’t a war, or part
of a war! Jeez!
Congressional actions become mere support for executive prerogative.
• grant that President has almost unlimited war-making powers while calling this
“unwar” or merely a “use of military force.”
• If Congress deigns to argue or question administration’s actions-- is to risk lives
of military personnel. [isn’t any use of troops more of a risk of military lives,
than a non-use of them?]
• argue that, once action has been taken, Congress must support it
to show a “united front.”
Congress gets tough now and then and large majorities would form in support of “non-
binding” resolutions that condemn Presidential unilateral military action. But these majorities
disappeared when consideration of binding resolutions began. Parties just don’t want to spank
their own kids.
George W. Bush—Will history judge him as a lone protector
of America or a destroyer of American liberty and moral
authority? Here’s a timeline of power:
• 9/11--Terrorists crash hijacked airliners into the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing
thousands. This tests his presidency like none
before because attack is on our soil—in our cities.
He takes strong action and has high approval
ratings as a result.
• The following month Bush signs the USA Patriot
Act. By the end of the month the Justice
Department acknowledges but won’t identify
more than one thousand individuals, mostly
immigrants, detained since September 11 attacks.
• November 2001 Bush issues executive order blocking the release of presidential
records and orders that “enemy combatants” be tried in military tribunals. The
Justice Department issues regulations allowing illegal immigrants to be detained
indefinitely if their release could pose “serious adverse foreign-policy
consequences.”
• December 2001 Bush informs congressional leaders that he intends to pull out of
the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty unilaterally.
• January 2002 The first Afghan prisoners arrive at “Camp X-Ray” in Guantánamo
Bay, Cuba; Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declares them “unlawful
combatants” with no rights under the Geneva Convention.
• June 2002 President unveils “Bush doctrine” of preemptive war in a speech at
West Point.10
• August 2002 In a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Cheney says there is
“no doubt” Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq could
have nuclear weapons “fairly soon.”
• September 2002 Bush asks Congress for authority to use “all means that he
determines to be appropriate” against Iraq.
• February 2003 Secretary of State Colin Powell appears before the UN Security
Council to make the case for war with Iraq.
• March 2003 U.N. official exposes as fakes documents showing Iraq attempted to
buy uranium from Niger. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers awards no-bid contract
with a $7 billion limit to a Halliburton subsidiary for fighting possible oil well
fires in Iraq. War on Iraq begins.
• April 2003 Congress approves Bush’s request for $79 billion to fund the Iraq War
and reconstruction.
• May 2003 Aboard the USS Lincoln—with a banner touting “Mission
Accomplished” as his backdrop—Bush declares victory in Iraq.
• June 2003 Inspector general finds that the Justice Department violated the civil
rights of hundreds of immigrants detained after 9/11.
• July 2003 Congress publishes report on September 11 attacks, but the White
House omits major portions (reportedly about Saudi Arabia) for “national
security” reasons.
• September 2003 Job losses over the past three years top 2.7 million. Bush asks
Congress for another $87 billion to fund the occupation of Iraq. Bush admits there
is no evidence tying Saddam Hussein to September 11 attacks.
• November 2003 FBI admits collecting intelligence on antiwar protesters.
• April 2004 CBS television airs first images of torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners
at Abu Ghraib prison.
• June 2004 Supreme Court rules against the Bush administration, insisting that
“enemy combatants”—whether U.S. citizen or foreigners—must be allowed to
challenge their imprisonment before an American judge.
• September 2004 The U.S. death toll in Iraq reaches 1,000.
• November 2004 Colin Powell resigns as Secretary of State.
• August 2005 Katrina devastates New Orleans and Gulf Coast, and FEMA and
Bush Administration are criticized for slow response to crisis.
• October 2005 Saddam Hussein goes on trial.
• November 2006 Donald Rumsfeld resigns as Secretary of Defense.
• April 2006 News reports reveal Bush has issued "signing statements" for more
than 750 laws, stating he has the power to override the laws if they conflict with
his interpretation of the Constitution.
• October 2006 Bush signs the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act,
which allows the president to deploy U.S. military troops to police American
streets in the event of a "national emergency."
• May 2007 Bush signs a presidential directive that places him in control of all
three branches of government in case of an extraordinary disaster.11
Overview: Why has power shifted so markedly from Congress to the President?
1. Cold War:
• Congress delegated more power, authority because country needed to act quickly
in emergency--only President deemed capable of acting decisively and quickly.
• Rise of permanent policy of official secrecy and covert operations; the necessity
and growing power of permanently secret intelligence operations. That gives
President unprecedented power.
• Implication for democracy: citizens no longer able to judge their government’s
actions, because they do not know what government is doing. Rightly so, we
have an increased basis for legitimate distrust of big government.
2. Political Changes in Congress:
• Rise of individualistic Congress that is less dedicated to their political party.
Candidate-centered politics produce individualistic members of Congress—rock
stars really. Less tied to their party but more ideologically committed because
campaign support comes from ideological activists.
3. Rise of interest groups produces demand for more policies.
• Interest groups more powerful, more sophisticated, better-funded. Individualistic
members of Congress respond to their needs.
4. Congressional seat becomes personal fiefdom:
• Individual members of Congress thus retain their seats, and their careers,
precisely because they are voicing concerns of their constituents or campaign
contributors, while avoiding political responsibility for tough decisions.
5. Pattern of passing vague laws of good intent and letting executive branch flush out details
behind closed doors.
6. Presidents are much more willing to take such risks, in part because they know they can’t
make a career out of being President.
7. Another irony: the two-term limit on Presidents was supposed to limit Presidential power
but it has worked, in conjunction with Congressional abdication, to strengthen Presidents,
by making them more willing to take charge, since that’s the only way they’ll make an
impact in the short time they have in office.
8. President and public opinion--strategy of “going public” with Presidential policy initiatives.
• Presidents are able to deliver much clearer, more consistent, more unified
messages to the citizens than Congress can.
Why?
a) structure of branches: Pres is hierarchical, easier to control messages12
Congress is decentralized, & divided by chambers and by party almost impossible
for Cong. leaders to control messages
b) rise of new media: radio, then television allow Presidents to speak directly
and immediately to citizens
9. President is not, of course, entirely dominant. Presidents can be weakened by scandals or
accusations of personal corruption or immorality. Much easier to hit them this way than by a
sustained criticism of the substance of their administration’s policies. It’s as though the
politicians know they can’t get the public to pay sufficient attention to substantive political
issues, so if they want to limit a President’s power, they must attack him personally, as in the
Clinton-Paula Jones-Lewinsky-impeachment. Lesson? Get a squeaky-clean candidate for your
party.
Final thought
It’s not that Congress never acts to prevent Presidents from making war
• Congress ended Vietnam War in 1973, after public demanded it.
• Congress denied Pres. Reagan ability to take action in Nicaragua,
because a majority of American citizens opposed such action.
When a majority of citizens speak clearly, Congress takes action to limit Presidential power.
But when most citizens have no opinion, or are completely ignorant, then Congress is much less
willing to act. Presidents and their advisors have learned this recent tendency, and aim to take
advantage of it.You can also read
