Everyone knows today's the fifth anniversary of the Senate's vote to authorize the use of military force against Iraq, with Senators Biden, Clinton, Dodd and Edwards among the 77 Senators voting in favor.
Well, there was another vote which preceded it by a few hours, and it's worth remembering as well: Senator (and kindly shoemaker) Carl Levin (D-MI) offered an amendment to condition the use of force against Iraq upon the U.N. Security Council's passage of a resolution authorizing the use of force or a subsequent Congressional resolution should the U.N. Security Council not so act. You can read its text here.
In support of the amendment, Sen. Levin presciently explained:
The resolution which I offer on behalf of those cosponsors and myself is consistent with how I think most Americans want us to proceed. It emphasizes the importance of dealing with Iraq on a multilateral basis, and it withholds judgment at this time on the question of whether the United States should go it alone, that is, whether we should act unilaterally against Iraq if the United Nations fails to act.
This resolution I am offering does the following: First, it urges the United Nations Security Council to adopt a resolution promptly that demands unconditional access for U.N. inspectors so Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and prohibited ballistic missiles may be located and destroyed, and within that same U.N. resolution authorizes the use of necessary and appropriate force by U.N. member states as a means of enforcement in the event that Iraq refuses to comply.
Our resolution also specifically authorizes use of United States Armed Forces pursuant to that U.N. Security Council resolution if Iraq fails to comply with its terms and the President informs the Congress of his determination that the United States has used appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to obtain Iraqi compliance with such a U.N. resolution. Our resolution affirms that under international law and under the U.N. charter, especially article 51, the United States has at all times the inherent right to use military force in self-defense. This affirms the fact that there is no U.N. veto over U.S. military action.
I repeat that because some of our colleagues have suggested otherwise about our resolution. The resolution we are offering explicitly affirms the fact there is no U.N. veto over U.S. military action because we state explicitly the United States has at all times an inherent right to use military force in self-defense. Our resolution also provides Congress will not adjourn sine die so that Congress can return to session, if necessary, and promptly consider proposals relative to Iraq if, in the judgment of the President, the U.N. Security Council does not promptly act on the resolution I have described above.
Our resolution therefore supports the President's appeal to the United Nations and it approves now the use of our Armed Forces to support the action of the United Nations to force compliance by Saddam Hussein with inspections and disarmament. However, it does not authorize now, before we know whether or not we have the world community on our side, U.S. Armed Forces going alone. Should we need to consider that possibility at a future time, the resolution provides for the immediate recall of Congress to do so.
... If we go it alone, will we be undercutting efforts to get other countries to help us with the expensive and lengthy task of stabilizing Iraq after Saddam is removed? Beyond the current situation relative to using force in Iraq, going it alone without U.N. authorization, based on a modified concept of preemption that no longer requires the threat to be imminent, will lead to a serious risk to international peace and security. If we act unilaterally, without U.N. authority or an imminent threat, that will create a dangerous situation for international peace and stability in the long term. We will be inviting other nations to forego an important rule of international law requiring a serious and imminent threat before one nation can attack another nation in the name of self-defense.
... Congress should give the President what he said in Cincinnati he was asking for: The authority to use U.S. military force to enforce U.S. Security Council demands; not what the resolution that is supported by the White House provides, which is going-it-alone authority. Our focus then would be where it belongs, securing a United Nations resolution that can unite the world; that has the best chance of forcing compliance and avoiding war; that reduces the risk to our forces and to our interests throughout the world; that avoids to the maximum extent possible the negative consequences if force is required, including the loss of cooperation on the war on terrorism. That is the best chance of isolating Saddam Hussein, rather than isolating the United States.
Senator Clinton explained her opposition to this approach:
Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The United Nations deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The United Nations can lead the world into a new era of global cooperation. And the United States should support that goal.
But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto on occasion for reasons of narrow national interest, it cannot act.
Senator Edwards, however, voiced support for such an approach:
The United States must do as much as possible to build a new United Nations Security Council coalition against Saddam Hussein.
Although the administration was far too slow to start this diplomatic process, squandering valuable time to bring nations to our side, I support its recent efforts to forge a new U.N. Security Council resolution to disarm Iraq.
Except he, too, like Clinton, Dodd and Biden, voted against the Levin Amendment, along with 24 other Dems and every Republican not named Lincoln Chafee. When push came to shove, and the Senate had the chance to require consultation with and seek approval from the UN Security Council -- rather than just hope for it -- all four candidates punted. When under pressure to make a decision, this is what they did. They trusted George Bush to do what was right and hoped he'd take the United Nations seriously, a lapse in judgment that remains hard to forgive or understand.
And with that, I want to repeat something I noted earlier this week:
What's wrong about the Iraq War isn't that we didn't find the weapons, or not "knowing" everything the Administration did at the time.
What's wrong about the Iraq War was that it happened in the first place, that a majority of both chambers of Congress (and the President) believed that it was a proper and achievable goal to invade a fractious foreign nation which posed no imminent threat, remove its leader, and somehow impose democracy and order at the barrel of a gun.
The whole concept was wrong, not just the execution, and anyone who doesn't realize that may not have the judgment to serve as President.
Electing a President isn't just about choosing who has the best plan to get us out of this fiasco. It's about determining who has the judgment and vision to avoid listening to the same-old Beltway "experts" and avoid the next one as well.