Stardate 20020821.1228

(Captain's log): Paul writes:

With so much talk about the legitimacy of war against Iraq, it seems to me that the war with Iraq didn't end in '91, that the original Congressional declaration never expired. Same as the Korean War, there is still in effect only a Cease Fire order.

The '91 Gulf War cease fire is contingent on full compliance with UN Res 687, calling for a complete inspection to verify absence of WMD; until Iraq allows unfettered inspection, then the war is still on, and the US doesn't need another UN/Congressional mandate -- we're just "finishing up loose ends".

There are two different issues in there. Taking the UN, first, I think that it would be a mistake to make that argument because implicitly, by claiming that the 1990 UN mandate was still in effect, we'd also be acknowledging that we even need such permission from the UN. There are a lot of people who have been working overtime to try to convince us that we somehow or other require some sort of formal international approval, from the UN or NATO or via "consultation with allies", and I categorically reject that principle.

I do not, however, reject the principle that a new Congressional mandate is required. I reject the idea that we need international permission because the other nations who would be called on to grant that permission would do so based on their own self interest and not based on whether we had a legitimate reason. Their pious arguments in favor of internationalism in this are a sordid ploy to con us into granting them veto power over our actions, which they'd then abuse. The reason they're trying to get us to accept that entire concept is so they could use it to manipulate us to our disadvantage. I don't think we should play that game, and I don't think we should do anything that gives the concept of international approval credence.

Congress is actually on our side (though I know sometimes it doesn't seem like it). I do not like the Constitutional implications of playing those kinds of semantic games about whether previous hostilities actually ended as a way of giving the President means to bypass consultation with Congress on that. Strictly speaking, a given authorization for hostilities runs out when the hostilities end and our soldiers come home. It doesn't require a formal peace treaty. The Korean War is over.

The question of Congressional approval in this case comes down to whether the authorization for hostilities passed last September covers an attack on Iraq. In order for it to do so, the Administration would have to contend that Iraq was directly complicit in the attack on us last September, or directly supported those who planned it.

It's not that we as a nation require those things to attack Iraq, and would not be able to at all without them, as some have contended, but rather that last September's authorization was only for such groups. If the President means to attack Iraq now (which I support) without such proof, then a new authorization for hostilities would be required from Congress.

As a practical matter, what you're suggesting wouldn't work. Irrespective of whether the President pretends that he already has authorization for hostilities, he can't fight a war without money from Congress, and if they think he's playing fast and loose they won't budget any.