The difficulty of managing global responsibilities while maintaining democratic values and processes has been made evident again by the on-going US strikes against Iran.
This week, both houses of the US Congress will vote on the merits of war on Iran. The method by which these votes will occur highlights a battle inside the US constitutional structure over the most important public policy question in the world today: who decides when and where the United States will go to war.
The US constitution, in effect for 237 years, is the oldest codified national governing document in the world. It’s fundamental precept, the division of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial branches, has proven to be a highly successful model for modern democratic governance.
The tension between the branches, the struggle for power and policymaking authority, is intentional. By distributing power to competing structures and forcing them to deal with each other to make decisions, the US constitution limits the possibilities for abuse while empowering reasoned debate and compromise.
When it comes to the question of war powers, the constitution sets up specific conflict between the president and the Congress. In Article I, Congress is given the power to ‘declare War’ and also to raise armies and maintain a navy. The president, in Article II, is given the power of commander-in-chief of those armies and navy provided by Congress.
The question has been raised over the current effort in Iran whether the US action is legitimate, given that Congress has not declared war. President Donald Trump has cited his power as commander-in-chief and the possibility of an imminent attack against US interests by Iran as the rationale for his decision to use military force.
This fundamental governance question is now manifest in a debate over the War Powers Resolution, a law passed in 1973 over president Richard Nixon’s veto in the aftermath of an unsuccessful and controversial war in Vietnam. The War Powers Resolution effectively sets up votes in Congress to approve or disapprove a president’s use of military force.
This week, the US Senate will vote to bring to the floor a resolution from Senator Tim Kaine, a Democrat of Virginia, calling for the removal of US military forces from conflict with Iran.
Kaine has been strident in his opposition to Trump’s actions in Iran, saying: ‘every single Senator needs to go on the record about this dangerous, unnecessary, and idiotic action.’
It is unlikely, however, that Kaine’s resolution will pass the senate.
It’s success or failure can plausibly be interpreted as the US Senate passing judgment on Trump’s decision to attack Iran. A similar process may occur this week in the House of Representatives. If both houses of Congress somehow pass a resolution disapproving the use of force in Iran, Trump will surely veto it. In neither body would there be the two-thirds majority needed to override his veto.
These War Powers Act votes are mechanically the opposite of what the US founding fathers envisioned. Instead of Congress voting affirmatively to declare war, or in the more modern parlance, voting to ‘authorise the use of military force’, Congress will be voting against disapproving war.
This double-negative legislative procedure will satisfy very few foreign-policy experts and commentators. Congress will be criticised for a lack of leadership and decisiveness. The War Powers Act, which was passed into law during a national crisis after the Vietnam war, is vessel for much of this criticism.
The tension between the branches remains but does not get in the way of effective action by the United States in a crisis.
This criticism, however, overlooks the great utility of what is unfolding. As the world’s leading nation, both economically and militarily, the United States is often called upon to solve problems that other nations cannot successfully address. This means war, or at least, decisive military action to punish rogue regimes or otherwise bolster the international order.
The case of Iran is on point. Iran supports terrorist groups across the globe; undermines its Arab neighbours and seeks the destruction of the State of Israel. For both political and military capacity reasons, Europe cannot stomach military action against Tehran, and Arab states must publicly oppose the use of violence against a fellow Muslim nation. The job of containing Iran is left to the United States and, to some extent, Israel.
Congress is unlikely to be able to muster the votes to actively declare war on Iran, but it can oppose disapproving the war. This will give the president enough authority to do what he needs to do as the commander-in-chief of the world’s essential nation. In this way, the War Powers Act is a highly useful codicil to the war powers envisioned in the constitution. The tension between the branches remains but does not get in the way of effective action by the United States in a crisis.