Last night, U.S. military forces once again attacked Syria.
By all accounts, Bashar al -Assad is a monster, a mass-murdering ex-physician who has betrayed every medical oath he ever took by inflicting ruthless savagery upon his own people.
But this comment is not about whether Dr. al-Assad or his government assets deserve to be bombed. It is about whether it is acceptable for our elected leaders to betray the American people and the Constitution by avoiding participation in and responsibility for the decision to do so.
The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, and the War Powers Act that was passed in 1973 to reduce unilateral Presidential military mischief, make it clear that authority to deploy military forces rests with Congress. Yes, the President is Commander-in-Chief. But, the Constitution wisely and explicitly divides military authority between Congress and the Executive.
Prior to yesterday’s bombing, a large bipartisan group of legislators reminded the administration of its duty to consult Congress and obtain authorization prior to use of military force. Dr. Assad, after all, had attacked his own people, not the United States, and Russia’s involvement with Syria is an important complicating factor. This was not a national security emergency, such as repelling an invasion or attack on U.S. citizens or property.
Where was East Tennessee’s incumbent Congressman when his Congressional colleagues were protesting unconstitutional military action?
He was telling his hometown newspaper that oversight of such bombing is not his job:
While Roe said Congress should be “kept informed” of any military action against Syria, he doesn’t think a formal declaration of war is needed “for retaliation to a gas attack.”
Rep. Roe is wrong.
He is wrong on the facts and he is wrong on the nature of the duty he assumed when he took the oath of office.
As to the facts — without Congressional oversight, how does Roe or any of us know that the only or even primary reason for bombing Syria is “retaliation to a gas attack”? Given the ongoing investigation of Russian ties to the administration, and Russian’ involvement with Syria, are there not alternative hypotheses? For example, an administration accused of being in Russia’s debt might seek to improve the appearance of independence by pretending to be tough on Russia, which does its part by claiming the U.S. basis for bombing Syria rests on fake news. In any case, even without considering Russia, shouldn’t Congress be involved in deciding whether and when “retaliation” justifies military action? If we are going to bomb regimes in “retaliation” because dictators kill their own people, why not bomb the Philippines or Myanmar? How did we pick Syria from among other genocidal regimes? I’m not suggesting that Assad be ignored. I am saying that the situation in Syria does not provide an excuse for Congressmen to abdicate their oath to support and defend the Constitution when it comes to exercising their role in decisions about use of military force.
As to Roe’s duty — the Constitution and the War Powers Act don’t say that Congress is to be merely “kept informed.” Congress must give authorization. This generally requires a bill or resolution, a debate, and a vote. And in case Roe might somehow thinks that Congress’ 2002 authorization for use of military force against Iraq applies to bombing Syria in 2018 — well, last time I checked, Iraq and Syria were still separate, independent nations.
Bottom line — any non-emergency use of military force requires a calculation of potential gains as well as risks and costs. The American people deserve a thoughtful, responsible, deliberate, and transparent approach to such decisions. The Constitution assigns this job to Congress.
Rep. Roe should absolutely understand the profound disrespect shown to our soldiers and our citizens when decisions to engage in military action capriciously disregard our Constitution. After all, he took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, he boasts of his personal two years’ service in the Army Medical Corps and, and he advertises his supposed support for veterans’ health and the VA health system.
East Tennessee voters will have a choice this November: a responsible new Representative who is ready, willing, and able to do the whole job; or an incumbent who prefers to duck and run from inconvenient Constitutional responsibilities.