Loading...
Stop printing EBT cards and illegal immigration ceases to exist. Global warming would take a hit too....

Will Congress remain a bystander regarding war?

George Will

George Will

Loading…

Sunday, December 10, 2017

The first use of nuclear weapons occurred Aug. 6, 1945. The second occurred three days later. That there has not been a third is testimony to the skill and sobriety of 12 presidents and many other people, here and abroad. Today, however, North Korea's nuclear bellicosity coincides with the incontinent tweeting and rhetorical taunts of the 13th president of the nuclear era. His almost daily descents from the previous day's unprecedentedly bad behavior are prompting urgent thinking about the constitutional allocation of war responsibilities, and especially about authority to use U.S. nuclear weapons.

Last month, for the first time in 41 years, a congressional hearing examined the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 that gives presidents sole authority. There was serious discussion of whether a particular presidential order for their use might not be "legal." But even if, in a crisis, time permits consulting lawyers, compliant ones will be found: President Obama's argued that the thousands of air strikes that killed thousands and demolished Libya's regime did not constitute "hostilities."

The exigencies of crisis management in an age of ICBMs require speed of consultations, if any, and of decisions. And the credibility of deterrence requires that adversaries know that presidents can act in minutes. Furthermore, the authority to employ nuclear weapons is, as was said at the congressional hearing, "intertwined" with the authority "to take the country to war." So, as a practical matter, President Trump can unleash on North Korea "fire and fury" without seeking the consent of, or even consulting, Congress.

This, even if North Korea has neither attacked nor seems about to attack America. A long train of precedents tends to legitimate practices, and this nation has engaged in many wars since it last declared war on June 5, 1942 (when, to satisfy wartime legalities, it did so against Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania). Over many decades, Congress has become — has largely made itself — a bystander regarding war.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., says, "If we have to go to war to stop this, we will." By "this" does he means North Korea's possession of nuclear weapons, which it has had for 11 years? Or ICBMs, which it is rapidly developing? If so, Graham must think war is coming, because there is no reason to think that North Korea's regime will relinquish weapons it deems essential to its single priority: survival. As Vladimir Putin says, North Korea would rather "eat grass."

North Korea, says Trump, is a "situation we will handle" — "we will take care of it." Does "we" denote deliberative and collaborative action by the legislative and executive branches? Or is "we" the royal plural from the man whose general approach to governance is, "I alone can fix it"? Trump's foreign policy thinking is short on nuance but of Metternichian subtlety compared to his thoughts on nuclear matters: "I think, for me, nuclear is just the power, the devastation is very important to me."

A U.S. war of choice against North Korea would not be a pre-emptive war launched to forestall an imminent attack. Rather, it would be a preventive war supposedly justified by the fact that, given sophisticated weapons and delivery systems, imminence might be impossible to detect. The long war on the primitivism of terrorists has encouraged such thinking.

A leaked 2011 memo from the Obama administration's Justice Department argued that using force to prevent an "imminent" threat "does not require ... clear evidence that a specific attack ... will take place in the immediate future." So, regarding al-Qaida, the memo said that because the government might not know of all plots and thus "cannot be confident that none is about to occur," any leader of al-Qaida or "associated forces" can be lawfully targeted at any time, without specific knowledge of planned attacks.

It would be interesting to hear the president distinguish a preventive war against North Korea from a war of aggression. The first two counts in the indictments at the 1946 Nuremberg trials concerned waging "aggressive war."

George Will is a columnist for the Washington Post.

Loading…

Humans of Greenville

@HumansofGville

Local photographer Joe Pellegrino explores Greenville to create a photographic census of its people.

Op Ed

October 21, 2018

Eugene Scott, The Washington Post 

Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's latest comments on her husband's affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky suggests that she doesn't completely understand the #MeToo movement and her husband's role in the need for its…

October 21, 2018

Weeks before it opened, "First Man" became embroiled in one of those stupid controversies that are now our economy's chief product. The movie, in telling the story of Neil Armstrong, does not show him planting the U.S. flag on the moon. Ryan Gosling, who plays Armstrong, only heightened the…

PONNURU

October 21, 2018

If Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, then he has joined Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un among the ranks of rogue leaders who assassinate their critics on foreign soil. The only difference is that the Russian president and North Korean leader…

MarcThiessen

October 20, 2018

Many are saying that the Nov. 6 elections are all about Trump, a referendum either affirming or refuting his leadership. Our president casts a big shadow, especially in Congressional races, but there’s more than just the Trump factor at play.

Once in a blue moon there is no major statewide…

Tom Campbell.jpg

October 20, 2018

If there was any doubt as to why the Saudis might think the leadership of this country would look the other way on the atrocity they are alleged to have committed against our colleague Jamal Khashoggi, President Donald Trump erased it Thursday night.

The president of the United States, who has long…

Karen Tumulty

October 19, 2018

Los Angeles Times

The Trump administration on Monday unveiled its latest proposal for reining in the cost of pharmaceuticals: requiring television advertisements for prescription drugs to display the price tag of the medication being promoted. For the 10 drugs seen most often on TV, the…

October 19, 2018

President Trump's constant, relentless, remorseless lying is a central feature of his presidency, an unprecedented threat to our democracy and — in my view — an impeachable offense.

I realize it does not qualify as news that Trump lies all the time. I also realize it is not always…

Eugene Robinson

October 18, 2018

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., shouldn't be underestimated as a political strategist or written off as an ideological twin of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. She has done three smart things in the early preseason of the 2020 Democratic presidential race.

First, she rolled out what is…

Jennifer Rubin

October 18, 2018

It's been noted a million times that Democrats need to pick up 23 seats to take control of the House of Representatives in next month's midterm elections. Nearly all analysis has focused on how many seats Republicans might lose.

Less noticed is the fact that the GOP will likely pick up a small…

Byron York.jpg

October 17, 2018

After the roller-coaster ride of 2016's election night, have journalists and political junkies learned not to let conventional wisdom substitute for hard knowledge?

Nate Silver, the closest thing there is to a celebrity in the arcane field of statistical journalism, is not wildly optimistic about…

Margaret Sullivan
293 stories in Op Ed. Viewing 1 through 10.
«First Page   «Previous Page        
Page 1 of 30
        Next Page»   Last Page»