- When George W. Bush was governor of Texas, his basic
strategy was to stake out a position and refuse to budge, hoping to bully
others into acquiescing. Only when met with strong opposition did he back
down and compromise. We are seeing the same strategy in his policy over
Iraq. In the past weeks, the president has attempted to bully the United
Nations and now Congress into allowing him to attack Iraq and depose its
leader. He is likely to get his wish. But the larger problem is not what
will happen if no one stands up to Saddam Hussein. It is what will happen
if no one stands up to the president and his vision of moral clarity.
-
- Our Constitution left the power to declare war to Congress
because of the fear that if the president could act unilaterally, he might
seek to aggrandize himself by taking the country into one war after another.
Although the president could always defend the nation if attacked, he could
not initiate hostilities without Congress' approval. In the 20th century,
Congress' role has receded of necessity, so the president's power to make
war has been hemmed in largely by domestic politics, the threat of nuclear
reprisal and international law.
-
- The Bush administration's new policy of pre-emptive attacks
is a dangerous addition to this mixture, creating a host of bad incentives.
Simply by announcing future threats that deserve pre-emptive action, presidents
can seize control of the political stage. A president who takes the country
to war pushes aside all other concerns. By shifting the nation's forces
from one military offensive to another, he can divert attention from domestic
failures and foreign policy blunders. The more often the president attacks
other countries pre-emptively, the more likely it becomes that our country
will be attacked in turn. The president can then justify additional military
action in response, and no patriotic American will oppose it.
-
- In this way, the president can effectively govern through
war, with disastrous consequences for the nation and for the world. Armed
with the doctrine of military pre-emption, the perpetual political campaign
perfected by our last president might well become the perpetual military
campaign of future presidents.
-
- President Bush had good reason to take us to war after
Sept. 11. Still, he has not accomplished his stated goal of eliminating
al Qaeda or capturing Osama bin Laden. With victory not achieved and Afghanistan
still unstable, he has now attempted to shift our attention to a new war
with Iraq. Again, he may well have excellent reasons for doing so. But
we must pay attention to the larger picture. Members of Congress debating
authorization for an attack on Iraq should ask the president tough questions
about what future military actions he is considering. The way the president's
foreign policy is proceeding, Iraq may not be the last war he asks us to
fight.
-
- The president is right about one thing, however. Today
the world faces a single man armed with weapons of mass destruction, manifesting
an aggressive, bullying attitude, who may well plunge the world into chaos
and bloodshed if he miscalculates. This person, belligerent, arrogant and
sure of himself, truly is the most dangerous person on Earth. The problem
is that his name is George W. Bush, and he is our president.
-
- Jack M. Balkin is Knight Professor of Constitutional
Law and the First Amendment at Yale Law School. His latest book is "The
Laws of Change" (Schocken Books, 2002).
- Copyright 2002, Hartford Courant
|