Congress's Power
BOSTON GLOBE EDITORIAL
9/21/2002
PRESIDENT BUSH, who started out claiming he did not need new resolutions from Congress or the UN Security Council to authorize a possible use of force against the regime of Saddam Hussein, has properly ceded to critics here and abroad who were insisting on the need for such authorization.
However, the resolution that Bush sent to Congress Thursday is too broad and too ambiguous on crucial points. Congress needs to be adamant in arguing for changes to the resolution, and Bush will be wise to heed sensible requests.
Key lawmakers from both parties have already raised questions about the implications of granting presidential authority not only to defend ''against the threat posed by Iraq'' but also to ''restore international peace and security in the region.''
Such an indefinite authorization could be used to justify military action not only against Saddam's regime but also against Syria, the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon, the Islamic Republic of Iran, or other regimes in the Persian Gulf and the Mideast.
To make sure that the Bush administration cannot draw on the resolution's ambiguity as a license to use force throughout a conflict-ridden region of the world, Congress has to insist that the resolution be rewritten to make clear that Bush will be authorized to take action only against Saddam's dictatorship in Iraq.
The geopolitical reasons for revising the text are as compelling as the constitutional imperative to prevent the executive from impinging on the legislative branch's exclusive right to declare war. The last thing the administration should want if it is preparing for the possibility of military action against Saddam is to frighten Iraq's neighbors with the notion that they could be next.
Indeed, it is crucial that Washington assure those neighbors that they stand to benefit greatly from Saddam's toppling. In particular, Bush needs to get across the point that Iranian hard-liners are wrong to suspect that Washington is plotting to encircle Iran as a prelude to an invasion of that country.
The administration also needs to make clear that its request for authorization to act against Saddam does not imply blanket congressional approval for preemptive wars anywhere or any time. There may be a case for preemptive action against Saddam, but since Bush's principal argument at the United Nations was that Saddam is in defiance of UN cease-fire resolutions ending the 1991 Gulf War, no precedent need be established for preemptive action.
Secretary of State Colin Powell has said he needs a congressional resolution to help him obtain a forceful UN Security Council resolution on Iraq. Fair enough, but that congressional resolution should include a commitment to base military action against Saddam on a UN Security Council resolution.
© Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company.
boston.com |
