Bush asks for use of force

Last week President Bush submitted a proposed resolution to Capitol Hill seeking Congressional say-so to pursue possible military action against Iraq. Critics of the proposal say the authority Bush wants is too broad and open-ended, citing similarities between Bush's Iraq resolution and the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which lead to the heightened U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Concerned parties, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, are advising Congress to carefully consider the flaws of Bush's proposal, such as its failure to specify a clear objective and its unilateral assignment of martial power, before granting him any undue military authority. \nAs with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, Bush's proposal does not explicitly specify against which countries the U.S. can use force. According to the draft resolution, Bush is "authorized to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to…defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security to the region." \nIf Bush were to decide that invading neighboring Iran would help restore peace and security to the region, then under the resolution he could claim he has the authority to do so. Similar language in the Gulf of Tonkin resolution permitted the invasion of Cambodia without Congressional approval.\nNor does the resolution state an explicit objective of the proposed military action, such as an Iraqi regime change. By failing to supply such an objective, the resolution does not provide any conditions by which the President's authority is terminated. Once again, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution did the same thing. The resolution would not only give Bush indefinite war-making power in the region, but might also be used by future presidents to wage unauthorized wars. In fact, Bush has claimed that he has the authority to attack Iraq under the 1991 Persian Gulf War authorization, though legal experts argue that unlike Bush's proposal, the Persian Gulf War authorization gives conditions for the termination of the war, and that Bush's claims are invalid.\nTogether with no expiration or boundary, Bush's authority would also be unilateral; Bush could make war without the approval of Congress. The War Powers Act of 1973 only gives the President such unbridled power when he or she must immediately repel an attack on the United States. Conferring such power to the President for the duration of the ongoing "war on terrorism" is unconstitutional. The War Powers Act, in fact, was created in response to similar abuse of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution during and after the Vietnam War. The American Civil Liberties Union said of the matter in a letter to Congress, "Approval of the President's language would be an abdication, not a fulfillment, of one of Congress's highest constitutional duties."\nIf the United States is going to wage war against Iraq, we must have specific, stated targets and objectives. The President should not have unilateral military authority in the Middle East. Bush's draft resolution must be rewritten to ensure that any military action taken against Iraq is swift and decisive. The Vietnam War and the Gulf of Tonkin resolution should have taught us the consequences of a prolonged, borderless war.