News Clips: Into the Gulf (1988)

Foreign Policy News Clips: Institute of International Studies, University of California, Berkeley

Foreign Policy News Clips: 1979-1990, edited by Harry Kreisler

1/29/88: Into the Gulf

IV. Who Should Decide if We Should be There?

"Among all the questions raised by the Iran-Contra arms deal, no one asked the most obvious one. If the American cause in Nicaragua is so urgent, why does the administration not submit a War Resolution to Congress?

"In the past when a civilized nation went to war, it issued an ultimatum. When the time stipulated in the ultimatum expired, the ambassador of the offending nation was told that the two countries were at war. The ultimatum stated the casus belli (cause for war), defining and so limiting the objectives for which the war would be fought; the declaration of war under international law implied adherence to international law; finally, when the objectives had been achieved, a treaty of peace would be signed. War in the Western tradition was a civil act. That was the underpinning of the idea of a just war."

Henry Fairlie, San Jose Mercury News, 8/10/87, p. 30

"Partisan bickering among those who are supposed to be our political leaders has gone to far. It has become a greater threat to our nation than external pressures from the Eastern Bloc or international weaknesses in the economy. Throughout America, and indeed the world, perceptive people see what is happening to us. They do not doubt America's ability to meet difficult challenges once we unite with a common sense of purpose, but they are truly frightened that our leaders are unable to put political differences behind them in a common effort to support obvious national interests."

David L. Boren and John C. Danforth, Washington Post, 12/1/87, p. 21

"The old axiom that politics makes strange bedfellows was never better illustrated than in the vote the other day on a watered-down compromise to deal Congress in on American policy in the Persian Gulf without invoking the War Powers Act. The Senate after much debate rejected one version and then approved another, 54-44, in a vote in which Republicans and Democrats split all over the lot."

Germond and Witcover, Sun, 10/25/87, p. H1

"There is only one way to keep the War Powers Resolution intact: Congress must invoke it. This does not mean 'jerking the rug out from under the President' by forcing him to withdraw the fleet from the Gulf, as some people seem to think. This case, it is far more likely that Congress would give the President its seal of approval and authorize the operation to continue."

Sheldon Himelfarb, Los Angeles Times, 11/1/87, p. 5

"The debate over whether Congress should invoke the War Powers Act over events in the Persian Gulf is bizarre since, on its face, the War Powers Act requires no invoking. Under this 1973 law, the President is supposed to consult with Congress before or, if necessary, 'immediately after placing American troops into actual or imminent hostilities.' If Congress doesn't authorize the military action within 60 days (with a 30 day extension), the troops are supposed to be withdrawn.

"The trouble is President Reagan has defied this law."

T.R.B., Sun, 10/1/87, p. 15

"The Administration's more muscular supporters contend that American foreign policy is being paralyzed by Congressional interference and that the legislature's assertiveness is unconstitutional. The case is not without merit. though not for the reasons usually advanced. What cannot be denied is that Congress is, by nature a beast which lives by cutting deals, by compromise -- and compromise is not always the best modus operandi in foreign policy."

Jurek Martin, Financial Times, 8/11/87, p. 11

"Senate leaders, frustrated by repeated stalemates over use of the 1973 War Powers Resolution to contain U.S. involvement in explosive conflicts such as the Persian Gulf war, are considering a high level bipartisan commission to draft changes in the law."

Helen Dewar, Washington Post, 10/6/87, p. 5

"This outburst of aggressiveness from Congressional leaders reflects a widening view on Capital Hill that the Administration has lost much of its competence and credibility on international issues. Democrats and Republicans alike say they have been consistently misled by policymakers who lack a coherent approach to world problems."

Steven E. Roberts, New York Times, 6/2/87, p. 14

"Is there any way to make the White House want to consult with political adversaries before undertaking major initiatives in foreign policy?

"One would be to revise the organic statute that created the National Security Council.

"Congress should amend this statute to provide that four of its own members serve on the NSC. They should be appointed by the President (to avoid any implication that his ultimate responsibility for foreign relations is being compromised) with the understanding that he choose a bipartisan and bicameral representation."

Donald L. Robinson, Los Angeles Times, 12/15/87, p. 7

"As the United States edges closer to sustained hostilities in the Persian Gulf, the War Powers Resolution should be invoked to help establish a consensus on the American presence in the region. Our policy is essentially on track, especially now that our Arab friends and European allies are beginning to provide meaningful support. It should not be derailed by an avoidable debate over the resolution."

Stephen J. Solarz, New York Times, 10/28/87, p. 31

"The United States attack on two Iranian offshore oil platforms in retaliation for a missile attack on a U.S.-flagged tanker vividly renews our attention to the hotly contested debate over whether the War Powers Resolution applies to current military operations in the Persian Gulf. To clarify the issues at hand, we need more historical perspective. Too many advocates of the resolution seek to apply 'lessons' of one searing recent experience: Vietnam. Like Mark Twain's cat, having sat once on a hot stove, they are determined never to sit on any stove at all."

Graham Allison, Los Angeles Times, 10/20/87, p. 17

"By setting what may be sound policy in secret, President Reagan is setting himself up for a huge 'Who needs his?' By ducking the reporting requirements of the War Powers Act, he playing into the hands of the isolationists at home and the most cynical oil sheiks abroad."

William Safire, International Herald Tribune, 5/27/87, p. 4

"For the last few months, the government of the United States has been involved in a dangerous enterprise -- the commitment of American military power in the Persian Gulf -- without trusting the public enough to speak with clarity and candor."

A. M. Rosenthal, New York Times, 8/18/87, p. 25

"While I was one of the original co-sponsors of the War Powers Resolution in the House of Representatives, I have come to feel the resolution has proved counterproductive. Many members of Congress are suggesting that the War Powers Resolution should apply to current military operations in the Persian Gulf. Neither the situation in the Gulf nor the action of Congress to date justifies such a step."

William S. Broomfield, Christian Science Monitor, 10/19/87, p. 14

"There is a lot of handwringing here over the ineffectiveness of the War Powers Act in the Persian Gulf conflict. There are also a lot of people in Congress who are sore at the Reagan administration for its refusal to execute provisions of the law -- the consultation and notification requirements -- which no administration has ever argued to be unconstitutional. But nobody is going to pay much attention until Congress gets its own house in order."

J. Brian Atwood, New York Times, 10/14/87, p. 27

"The U.S. assault on Iran's Persian Gulf oil platforms in response to the attacks on U.S.-flagged shipping once again dramatically underlines the need for congressional action to force presidential compliance with the 1973 War Powers Act. The U.S. military initiative represents the most serious engagement of our forces in hostilities in the Gulf thus far. By attempting to end-run Congress on the decision to commit U.S. forces there, President Reagan only increases his risk of losing existing congressional and public support for his adventurous policies in the Gulf."

Alan Cranston, Washington Post, 8/22/87, p. 23

"In foreign affairs particularly, Congress has stretched the powers of the purse and of oversight beyond recognition -- claiming for itself a veto power over many details of implementation, devising action forcing mechanisms that limit presidential authority. The War Powers Resolution adopted in 1973, whose constraints no president has accepted, is the most sweeping example of such legislation."

Jeane Kirkpatrick, Sun, 8/3/87, p. 11

"In short, with the exception of the few instances where the Constitution allocates specific authority to one branch or the other, it is pointless to argue about the separation of powers in foreign affairs in terms of either 'constitutional mandate' or the intent of the Founding Fathers. As Columbia Law Professor Louis Henkin has written, the allocation of powers in foreign-policy making has been determined rather by 'the structure of the federal government, the facts of national life, the realities and exigencies of international relations (and) the practices of diplomacy.'"

Jonathan Hecht and Alex Papachristou, Washington Post, 8/11/87, p. 15

"Still he (Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.) acknowledged in an address to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, 'the text of the Constitution was too full of generality, ambiguity, omission and overlapping grants of authority to settle the range of problems arising in the conduct of foreign affairs. The result, as E.S. Corwin famously put it, was to make of the Constitution "an invitation to struggle for the privilege of directing American foreign policy."

Stephen S. Rosenfeld, New York Times, 9/18/87, p. 27

"Thus, the War Powers Resolution is a law of the land that isn't being obeyed by the President and can't be enforced by Congress. That makes it a bad law for which repeal may be the best alternative, since nothing in the record suggests that Congress is likely to strengthen it."

Tom Wicker, New York Times, 1/7/88, p. 23

"The Senate yesterday escaped its latest entanglement with the 1973 War Powers Resolution over the U.S. tanker-escort operation in the Persian Gulf but agreed to make it easier to invoke war-powers constraints on military engagements in the future."

Helen Dewar, Washington Post, 12/5/87, p. 6