The Constitution of the United States is a brilliant contraption, but the duel under way between Congress and the President over the war in Iraq has put some of its limitations on display. The document specifies that "Congress shall... declare War" (a provision that Congress seems to have forgotten) while assigning the President, as Commander in Chief, the power to wage the war thus declared (this provision is well remembered!). But the document offers no provision for cases in which the two branches disagree on the waging of a war already begun. No constitutional provision specifically assigns any branch of government the power to "undeclare" a war. Only Congress's power of the purse--that blunt instrument--seems up to the job. What if, for example, a President were to oppose a war that Congress ordered him to fight? Could the Commander in Chief successfully fight a war he did not believe in? That problem has never arisen, but now the opposite situation has developed, as it did once before, during the Vietnam War: Congress has turned against a war it once authorized, while the executive continues to insist on waging it.

Now in Democratic hands, Congress seeks to find a way to make its will felt in the face of George W. Bush's seemingly implacable resolve to "stay the course" in Iraq. One serious problem is that if, fearful of demanding a true end to the war, Congress merely tries to influence the war's conduct by issuing guidelines, passing resolutions, demanding certain changes in the military mission and such, then it creates two "deciders" regarding the conduct of the war--a situation that even the warmest advocate of separation of powers will find dubious. Republicans may have a point when they say Congress should not merely interfere in the decisions of the Commander in Chief but should either defund the war altogether or stay out of it.

And yet if, to create unity, the Democrats in Congress join with moderate Republicans around a cosmetic compromise--as many seem tempted to do--they will have embraced the worst of all possible worlds. For example, Senator Jack Reed announced in his response to Bush's September address to the nation on the war that a Democratic plan would focus "on counterterrorism and training the Iraqi army." Such a proposal--easily interpreted by the Administration to justify everything it is doing--would be a de facto acquiescence to the Bush policy. It could create a policy quagmire to match the quagmire on the ground in Iraq. For example, if the military launched operations supposedly to counter terror but actually to quell civil war, would Congress demand their cessation? Could it? By what means? Moreover, the unity such a policy would produce would be strictly a Congressional affair. It would nullify the public's will, clearly expressed in the 2006 elections as well as subsequent opinion polls, to end the war. We are often warned not to "politicize" the war. If that means politicians should not use the war for partisan advantage, the advice is sound. Yet in a deeper sense, politics is the way a democracy conducts its business. It is the means the public is given for making basic decisions facing the nation. If the Democrats close ranks with the Bush Administration around a policy that continues the war, the fundamental purpose of the Constitution--to provide a mechanism for government by the people--will have been thwarted. Without politics, there is no democracy.

Subscriber Login

User Name

Password

Subscribe Now!

The only way to read this article and the full contents of each week's issue of The Nation online is by subscribing to the magazine. Subscribe now and read this article -- and every article published since for the past five years -- right now.

There's no obligation -- try The Nation for four weeks free.

• Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 75 cents a week!
• If you like this article, consider making a donation to The Nation.