COLUMN LEFT : Can Congress Rein In the Dogs of War? : It’s not outmoded for the question of war or peace to go before the nation’s legislature.

In August, 1967, at the height of U.S. involvement in the Indochina war, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Katzenbach appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to justify the Johnson Administration’s advocacy of further escalation.

The committee chairman, J. William Fulbright of Arkansas, was seeking to reverse the catastrophe unleashed by congressional acquiescence in a presidential war spurred by passage of the 1964 Tonkin Gulf Resolution. He questioned Katzenbach extensively about Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the sole authority to declare war. At one point Sen. Fulbright asked: “You think it is outmoded to declare war?” Katzenbach responded: “In this kind of a context I think the expression of declaring a war is one that has become outmoded in the international arena.”

That exchange summarized presidential disdain for the constitutional war-authorizing responsibility of Congress throughout the Cold War era. Now, despite the subsequent passage of the War Powers Act and the almost universal realization that Cold War superpower confrontation has significantly receded, the Bush Administration appears committed to initiating a presidential war against Iraq--in defiance of the Constitution and without the full support or consent of the American people.

I challenge the President’s contention concerning his war-making authority, because I believe that acting on such a premise would be a violation of his oath to defend the Constitution. Whatever validity there may be to the proposition that a President must be able to respond immediately and without congressional deliberation or counsel to protect the United States from attack, the facts of the current crisis do not warrant such unilateral action.

The quick, collective security response of the United States and its NATO and Middle East allies has preserved the gulf states from possible attack by Iraq. However, recent reports and briefings by the Pentagon and CIA indicate that the Administration has shifted from a defensive to an offensive military posture and that a military solution is now the preferred option to patient, persistent diplomatic pressures. Recent Pentagon estimates also indicate that more Americans might be killed in the first 14 weeks of a war with Iraq than were killed during the 14 years of our combat role in Indochina. Given these realities and options, I contend that any imminent presidential decision for offensive military action would lack a firm consensus in the Congress, the nation and the international community.

Recently, I have worked with a growing number of colleagues to develop constructive policy alternatives--that is, that war is avoidable and that honest negotiations, combined with increasingly stringent economic sanctions implemented through the aegis of the United Nations, are the proper paths to pursue. Thirty-two House colleagues joined me on Oct. 9 in writing the President that: “Our past experiences as a nation show us that military force has seldom worked well as a substitute for diplomacy. . . . When resorted to without proper congressional action, it is an invitation to domestic strife and discord and a poor example for our efforts to promote constitutional democracy by leading through example.”

When the President did not respond I then initiated an effort, supported by 40 House colleagues, to petition House Speaker Thomas S. Foley to “include provisions in the Resolution of Adjournment for the 101st Congress that would allow you . . . to call Congress back into session if U.S. troops employed in Operation Desert Shield attack Iraqi forces or come under hostile fire from them.”

By adjournment, late last month, 82 members presented a statement to Speaker Thomas S. Foley and the President asserting that: “We are emphatically opposed to any offensive military action. We believe the U.N.-sponsored embargo must be given every opportunity to work and all multinational, non-military means of resolving the situation must be pursued.”

This statement is a formal affirmation that there is a strong peace movement in Congress that will not acquiesce in a unilateral Administration decision for war.

Congress has a moral and constitutional obligation to rein in the dogs of war at this critical moment. The President owes it to all humanity to adhere to his sworn oath of office, which includes an unequivocal respect for Congress’ solemn responsibilities, including the war-making power. This member of Congress is committed to holding him to that oath.