On War

The strikes on Iran, the Constitution, and the people.

President Trump declared “major combat operations in Iran” without asking Congress for a declaration of war or its equivalent. Nor did he really address the nation, the citizens who are asked to pay for wars and send their children to fight them. He waited until after the strikes had started to leave a social media post on a platform he owns.

Trump is far from the first chief executive to commit military force without seeking a Congressional declaration. But the strikes on Iran are a particularly stark case. Past presidents have at least gestured toward that constitutional requirement.

The Constitution says, “The Congress shall have Power… to declare war.” It also says the President is the commander in chief. Presidents have repeatedly used that command authority to circumvent the Congressional power.

As a non-lawyer, the law seems pretty clear to me. Congress decides when to start a war and who is the enemy. Once that is decided, the president takes command of the army. If another nation attacks first, this becomes moot and the commander in chief will respond in any way necessary until Congress can make decisions.

Very few presidents have fully conceded this reading. They have taken the position that they will do whatever they need to do. They construe military action—especially airstrikes—as mere tools of foreign policy. They don’t want to be constrained. And in truth, many lawmakers have not wanted the responsibility of being asked first.

Our Constitutional system envisions a wise, statesmanlike, prudent Congress who would not needlessly constrain the president—who would pay attention to events, do their jobs, authorize action when it made sense and restrain it otherwise.

You can doubt whether Congress is capable of this! But occasionally Congress has done it, as with the U.S. entry into both World Wars. World War I in 1917 is a pertinent example, as it was something of a war of choice. German attacks on American shipping made it vital to do something, but the timing was up to the United States. Congress debated and voted.

In other cases, Congress did not insist on its full war power but went on record in various ways. Both wars on Iraq were preceded by votes in Congress to authorize force if necessary. A vote in Congress authorized military action after 9/11 (also that authorization was put to more and more elastic purposes as the years went on). These votes had the effect of sparking debate, putting political leaders on the record, and engaging the public in the process. It also ensured that the president was not out on a limb without Congress or the public behind him.

The Constitution is designed so that big decisions are rarely supposed to be in the hands of one person. Many people should weigh in, which is appropriate in a republic with self-government.

President Trump did not consult Congress. It seems that Secretary of State Marco Rubio gave some kind of notification to the Gang of Eight, the four top Congressional leaders and the leaders of the intelligence committees. Some of the Democrats emerged from that meeting on Tuesday urging Trump to make his case to the people in his State of the Union address that night. He did not. That is why some Democrats have labeled this an illegal war.

If Iran’s government collapses easily, this may have little practical effect, except the further erosion of the power of Congress. Iran’s government is a longstanding enemy of the United States and it seems few in the U.S. government would mourn it.

If the regime change operation becomes protracted or difficult, or leads to unforeseen consequences, that would be a different case. Neither Republicans nor Democrats were required to weigh in on the value or the risks of this operation. Nor was the public really engaged, although Trump’s action has been anticipated for some weeks. And that is significant, because the public was committed without being asked—neither directly nor through its representatives. If things go wrong, nobody will feel bound to defend the war, as many lawmakers felt bound to defend the war in Iraq.

The title of this post is borrowed from On War, a nineteenth-century book by military theorist Carl von Clausewitz, who said that war is not an isolated act. It is the continuation of politics by other means. Because war is a form of politics, a form of policy, it matters whether and how a president engages the body politic.