Adam Trueblood Commentary	Index
An End to Unnecessary War In the great majority of criticisms directed at the government since the onset of war in Iraq, the target has been the executive branch.  While this is understandable given the Bush administration’s pursuit of an unjustified war sold by purposeful deceit, the larger failure of our Congress to protect the nation from such a debacle has been obscured by the commotion relating to casualties and missing WMD.  Yes, the Bush administration has acted negligently, and most likely criminally, but what of the congress that allowed and funded such a misguided, tragic military adventure?  Both in the preparation for war and in the event itself, our Congress has failed to fulfill its duty as overseer of the executive branch.  Pre-war intelligence was not sufficiently vetted, and a gullible, complacent legislature has failed in the war’s aftermath to even formally reprimand a president who willfully deceived the nation by distorting military intelligence.  In addition to thousands of injured and US military expenditures of over $200 billion, the war has resulted in the deaths of over 650 US soldiers and more than 10,000 Iraqis.  The 535 members of the US Congress have not had to experience these sacrifices personally, as only one family member of these 535 legislators is serving in Iraq.      According to constitutional law, Congress must take a formal vote before any military action.  The purpose of this constitutional article is to prevent military adventures that are unnecessary or injurious to the health of the nation.  In practice however, the US Congress has abdicated from its responsibility to be the final arbiter of military force.  Despite over 230 uses of US military force between 1776 and the present, Congress has declared war only five times in our history.  In the twentieth century, there were two formal declarations of war (WWI and WWII) despite the following partial list of major conflicts and invasions: Philippines (1900) Invasion of Mexico (1916-17) Nicaragua (1926-1933) Korea (1950-1953) Laos (1962-1975) Vietnam (1963-1975) Dominican Republic (1965) Cambodia (1970) Lebanon (1982) Grenada (1983) Panama (1989) Iraq (1991) Colombia (1991-) Somalia (1993) Haiti (1994) Bosnia (1995) Kosovo (1999) Afghanistan (2001) Iraq (2003) This list represents only the more significant deployments of US force, as the total number of foreign conflicts to which we’ve committed troops is over 100 since 1900. The War Powers Resolution of 1973, coming in the wake of Vietnam, sought to place at least some congressional restraint on the executive, mandating that use of military force would have to be approved by Congress within 90 days of the troop deployment.  However, the end result of the War Powers Resolution is to create a dangerous dynamic in which Congress shirks its responsibility to formally declare war as long as the president keeps it informed of how the military is being used.  Congress defers to the president’s judgment, and in the event of a disaster such as Vietnam or Iraq can place blame on the executive when in reality the end authority and accountability should fall on the legislature.  War should only be engaged in as a last resort, or when the circumstances are severely threatening to US security, and the formal vote of war by Congress is the seal of legitimacy.  In the current ill-conceived system, the president is also partially relieved of responsibility and can, in his own turn, claim to have followed the rules by obtaining congressional approval for use of force, thereby deflecting criticism of his military policies.  The reality is that Congress defers to the president, and as Iraq has demonstrated, does not impose restraint before the onset of conflict as long as the president makes a dutiful appearance before the body.      As the overly complacent Congress has shirked this most important duty, the nation is placed in the most dangerous position of all, where there are no balances and no one in the end is accountable for the most momentous of decisions. The Iraq quagmire illustrates this perfectly, as the president can now truthfully say that he had congressional approval to send troops into Iraq, and Congress can elude responsibility by saying that it was voting for leverage, not war, or that the resolution for force was obtained by manipulation of the facts. The US Congress may also claim that it was supporting a police action, not war, or that it was not a real war since the US forces were part of a coalition (UN or other).  One might ask, what was Panama in 1989?  A congressman might respond that it was a “police action”.  What was Korea in 1950-53, with over 30,000 US soldiers dead?  The congressman could respond that we were part of a “coalition”.  How about Vietnam, with over 50,000 troops dead and by many estimates, more than 2 million Vietnamese?  Well, we did start out in the role of advisors, and things just escalated, might come the response.  With a formal declaration, the congress would be unequivocally responsible, and therefore would have to place more emphasis on corroboration of intelligence, threat assessments, and national interest.  The current system is broken, and remains so because neither the president nor the congress in the end must assume responsibility for sending US troops abroad to sacrifice their lives.      There is a very straightforward, effective way to eliminate unnecessary warfare and establish the US as a truly responsible military power.  An upper limit would be established on troop deployment to cover police actions and peacekeeping forces, under which the current rules of authorization could apply.  Perhaps this limit would be around 5,000 soldiers in any one country.  Beyond that, the congress would not only have to declare war, but more importantly, each of the 435 representatives and 100 senators would be required to send one family member to the field of combat operations.  The family member could be from the immediate family or grandchildren, or the immediate family or grandchildren of a sibling.  They would serve in the capacity of soldiers, journalists, photojournalists, and medical personnel, and they would serve in combat operations alongside the other Americans called to defend the nation.  War would no longer be fought for those in power by someone else… every war fought by America would include those closest to the leaders responsible for that war.  The president, vice-president, secretary of defense, secretary of state, and secretary of the treasury would also be governed by this requirement, so in the end at least 540 of those closest to the arbiters of war would face the full consequences of our government’s decision.  The likely result would be the transformation of the United States into one of the most peaceful nations on earth, rather than one of the most warlike.  The men and women holding the levers of power would feel the pain and sacrifice of war, and the hypocrisy of their war cries would be replaced by genuine restraint and the conservatism born of the knowledge that their own family members might lay down their lives on war’s distant battlefields. May, 2004