The Wrong Resolution

The resolution Congress passed early today authorizing the use of military force against Iraq gives too much power to this and, potentially, future presidents to attack nations unilaterally based on mere suspicions.

This could fundamentally change the nation’s approach to foreign policy. It could also, as Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) observed this week, “have ramifications for the future of the world, because other countries will adopt this same philosophy.” A preemptive strike against Iraq could spring open a Pandora’s box of aggression. Russia could cite it to crush insurgents in Georgia. India could use it to justify a nuclear strike to prevent Pakistan from such an attack.

When John Quincy Adams declared that America “goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy,” he articulated a doctrine that has served the nation well. In two world wars and the Cold War, the United States could pride itself on acting defensively. America did not seek out evil; evil sought out America.

History has also shown the risks of straying from this policy of restraint. Because Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964, giving President Lyndon B. Johnson the power to send more troops to Vietnam, many thousands of young Americans died in a war the nation ultimately lost. In that case, legislators could legitimately say the White House had misled them. Today Congress has no such excuse.

Though shorn of the original resolution’s more sweeping language, the measure approved by Congress is clear. It expands presidents’ powers and undercuts Adams’ doctrine of defense. On Thursday, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) warned: “We have said historically we are a defensive nation. This new foreign policy ... is a dramatic departure from that.... I beg and caution my colleagues to think twice about that.”

It is to the nation’s credit that the quality of debate in Congress matched the gravity of the occasion. The public’s reasoned unease about heading into war seems to have prompted President Bush’s turn toward caution and new emphasis on the role of the United Nations and an international coalition.

Now that the resolution has passed, Congress and the American people should urge the president to interpret his mandate narrowly.

The resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of any military action against Iraq and to submit at least every 80 days a report to Congress about any campaign.

Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Alamo) reflected the judicious approach to that requirement when she said she expected Bush “to provide clear plans for military engagement that explain our military strategy, detail where our troops will be based, report to Congress on his efforts to secure international assistance, protect us against simultaneous threats from other parts of the world and define plans for Iraq after Saddam.”

But Bush would be wise to do everything possible to avoid ever reaching that point. Neither the United States nor any other nation can be sure it is safe until Saddam Hussein opens every inch of Iraq to weapons inspectors.

If the president can get the U.N. Security Council to pass a tough new demand for unlimited probes, backed by an unequivocal threat of force by many nations’ armies, the United States would avoid ever testing the radical new doctrine of unilateral, preventive first strikes.

The world has indeed changed since Sept. 11, 2001. Iraq must be disarmed. But even the new terrorist threats should not panic this nation into abandoning one of its guiding principles.