Congress Gropes for Its Proper Role in a New Sort of Warfare

Although lawmakers generally expressed support Tuesday for President Reagan’s strike on Tripoli, the episode has left an anxious Congress groping for its proper role in what amounts to a totally new kind of warfare for the United States.

“It’s a war, and yet not a war in the sense we’ve known it,” House Minority Leader Robert H. Michel (R-Ill.) said. “Congress is going to have to get into the act at some point. . . . We’re plowing new ground here, and you have to think: ‘Hey, what comes next?’ ”

“People will rally behind the President, but there is clearly a substantial amount of unease,” congressional scholar Norman Ornstein agreed. By “signing off” on this single strike, he said, Congress could be “giving the executive almost a carte blanche to go ahead and respond to terrorism as he sees fit, including very heavy military involvement.”

Although World War II marked the last time Congress exercised its constitutional power to declare war, Congress has found itself providing the funds to send thousands of U.S. troops into prolonged combat twice since then.

Clumsy Tools for Policy

The War Powers Act, passed over President Richard M. Nixon’s veto in 1973, was designed to give the House and Senate the authority to block the President from leading the nation into another Vietnam-style quagmire. But its provisions for consulting and notifying Congress appear to be clumsy tools for shaping a policy of swift strikes against governments that sponsor the international terrorist, an elusive and shadowy enemy who slips with ease across national borders.

“I don’t believe when we were considering the War Powers Act, we were talking about international terrorism,” Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) said. “I don’t think we ever contemplated a quick action by an international terrorist or a quick response by us.”

Dole and several House members, including California Rep. Duncan L. Hunter (R-San Diego), plan to introduce legislation Thursday that would exempt the President from obligations under the War Powers Act in cases of retaliation against terrorism.

Criticism Dismissed

California Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.) dismissed those in Congress who insist on being consulted before such strikes as “a few self-important people popping off. . . . There shouldn’t be any more than the notification that was given” Monday, when Reagan summoned key congressmen to the White House to tell them of the planned strike.

House Speaker Thomas P. (Tip) O’Neill Jr. (D-Mass.) shared Wilson’s view: “I do not expect to be consulted. I do expect to be informed and I was informed.”

O’Neill, saying there was “no question in my mind” that Reagan was doing the right thing, added: “I actually was surprised they did not act sooner.” Referring to Libyan Col. Moammar Kadafi, the Speaker said: “We just can’t let this madman of terrorism keep threatening Americans.”

While critics agreed that there was a need for secrecy and surprise in the strike on Libya, they said that the Administration should have given Congress a stronger role in making the decision to embark on what Reagan hailed as a new U.S. policy against terrorism.

Full Consultation Sought

“The proper role of Congress under the War Powers Act is to be fully consulted,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Dante B. Fascell (D-Fla.) said. “I’m not talking about disclosing battle plans; I’m talking about discussing options. . . . We need to do more than simply supply the money and give tacit approval.”

“The Administration takes a very narrow view of its requirements where the Congress is concerned,” said Sen. David Durenberger (R-Minn.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

While Reagan--along with all his predecessors since Nixon--has contended that the War Powers Act unconstitutionally infringes upon his powers as commander in chief, many in Congress said that he lived up to the letter of the legislation by calling congressional leaders to the White House late Monday.

“I think the consensus is that the War Powers Act has been complied with,” said Rep. Thomas S. Foley of Washington, the House’s third-ranking Democrat.

But that did not lighten the concern of others. The congressional leaders were not asked for their opinions until U.S. bombers were already on the way to Libya.

As Michel recalled, the choice put to him amounted to: “Within half an hour, Bob, are you with us or against us? . . . What if I really had such a reservation? Would I say, Mr. President, I can’t support you on that?”

Michel said that he and Fascell have discussed putting together “some kind of (legislation) by which we get Congress into the mix, so we’re not left out in the cold.”

That bill, he said, would probably endorse the strike as a “justifiable act.” But Michel added: “I don’t know if Congress is willing to spell out to what lengths we are willing to go to defend our people.”

Times staff writer Sara Fritz contributed to this story.