Is it asking too much of Congress to support American troops under fire in the Middle East? This, sadly, is not a rhetorical question. The House of Representatives has conspicuously failed to support our troops and the Senate is poised to follow suit.
How so? By passing a “war powers resolution” designed to restrict President Trump’s Constitutional authority as Commander in Chief to authorize military action in defense of our troops. The House approved a war powers resolution last week and the Senate is expected soon to do the same.
Why now? Because of the U.S. military strike that took out Iranian General Qassem Suleimani. Congressional advocates of a war powers resolution say it is needed to stop Trump from taking America to war. Never mind that the President has been extraordinarily restrained and tempered in the wake of repeated Iranian provocations.
In fact, it was the only after an American serving in Iraq was killed by Iranian-backed militia that Trump finally decided to strike back by taking out Suleimani. The President has since made clear, in both word and deed, that he has no plans or desire for a larger-scale war with Iran. Yet, says Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), “Congress cannot be sidelined on these important decisions.”
Of course, no one would deny Congress its rightful say in the use and disposition of American military power. Under Article 1 of the Constitution, Congress authorizes and appropriates funding while conducting necessary oversight of the executive branch and U.S. military. But once U.S. forces are deployed—as they have been in the Middle East for decades now—then the President of the United States, as Commander in Chief, has a solemn responsibility to act with dispatch in their defense.
That’s exactly what Trump did when he ordered the strike against Suleimani, a terrorist ringleader who had orchestrated the death of more than 600 Americans. As Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explains, we simply cannot have 535 Commanders in Chief. That is completely illogical and utterly impractical.
If the war powers resolution ever makes its way to Trump’s desk, it will be summarily vetoed. The President will not allow his Constitutional authority as Commander in Chief to be usurped by Congress. Nonetheless, serious damage will have been done to America’s standing in the world, and our troops will be imperiled.
Terrorists and rogue regimes throughout the Middle East will interpret the war powers resolution as an impediment to Trump’s ability to respond to their provocations and defend our troops. They will see the resolution as an opportunity for them to terrorize U.S. and allied forces with minimal fear of reprisal: because, after all, Trump has been constrained; his hands tied by Congress.
Weakness invites aggression, and make no mistake: the war powers resolution signals weakness to America’s enemies.
What should Congress have done and what might it still do? Simple: pass a resolution that: a) condemns the Iranian regime for sponsoring terrorism; and b) supports the U.S. military strike against Suleimani. That would strengthen deterrence vis-a-vis the regime and limit the possibility of a larger-scale war in the Middle East.
President Reagan called this “peace through strength,” and it is still the right and strategically wise approach.
