Julian Zelizer: Commentaries
Share this on:
Mixx Facebook Twitter Digg delicious reddit MySpace StumbleUpon LinkedIn Viadeo
It's too easy for presidents to go to war
By Julian Zelizer, Special to CNN
March 28, 2011 -- Updated 1137 GMT (1937 HKT)
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
* Julian Zelizer: Many people have questioned U.S. involvement in Libya
* He says several factors have made it easier for presidents to go to war
* Congress has acquiesced in attacks ordered by presidents, he says
* Wars no longer lead to a draft or a boost in taxes, he says
Editor's note: Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs
at Princeton University. He is the author of "Jimmy Carter," published by Times
Books, and "Arsenal of Democracy."
Princeton, New Jersey (CNN) -- Many people across the political spectrum have
been unhappy with President Barack Obama's decision to send American fighting
forces to attack Libya. They argue that Obama failed to provide an adequate
explanation for making this choice.
"Lots of confusion," said Sarah Palin, "What is the mission here in Libya?" A
number of prominent Democrats have likewise wondered why the president entered
this fight and said they felt Congress was not sufficiently consulted.
Sen. James Webb, D-Virginia, and a Vietnam veteran, warned that "this isn't the
way our system is supposed to work." Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, called the
attack an "impeachable offense" (though he later said that impeachment was not
on the table).
With all the attention that is being paid to Obama's inconsistent rationales,
there has been less concern about the ease with which the White House sent U.S.
forces into combat. Indeed, the country seems so accustomed to presidents
employing military force at their own will that there are few voices demanding
democratic consent.
The dynamics surrounding Libya are not unique to the current president. Rather,
they are a product of the nature of war in modern America. For decades, U.S.
presidents have been willing to send significant numbers of troops and materiel
into overseas conflict with great frequency.
The bar has been lowered for what the president needs before he can send troops
into conflict...
--Julian E. Zelizer
Many changes since World War II have brought the nation to this place. The
first is that Congress delegated authority to the president to start military
operations by no longer insisting on a declaration of war. Since President
Harry Truman sent troops to Korea in 1950, with congressional acquiescence but
without a declaration of war, his predecessors have become comfortable
repeating this practice. At times, they have requested resolutions of support
but, in general, the bar has been lowered for what the president needs before
he can send troops into conflict.
At the same time, presidents have seen a vast expansion of executive power that
increased the institutional resources available to them to analyze information,
debate policy and even conduct covert warfare. The National Security Council
was created in 1947, for instance, and gave presidents in-house counsel and
expertise on national security decisions. Presidents can do much more without
Congress.
There have been critics of this development. As Obama himself said in 2007,
"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally
authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an
actual or imminent threat to the nation." But the critics have usually been
ignored, or they have not proved to be very consistent.
The second key change was the end of the draft. Until 1940, Congress had
depended on an ad hoc system whereby the president and Congress created a
temporary draft when the nation went to war, such as in World War I. But as
America's involvement overseas deepened, this no longer seemed viable.
In 1940, with America on the eve of World War II, Congress passed a permanent
draft that remained on the books until 1973. Although the draft was far from
perfect and allowed many wealthier Americans to avoid service, it was still a
system that drew from a broad portion of the population.
Politicians no longer call on the nation to pay for the financial costs of war.
--Julian E. Zelizer
US Libya mission: Fly-over with no end?
The military mission in Libya
Defining success in Libya
RELATED TOPICS
* Barack Obama
* Libya
* Tax Policy
* Vietnam
* War and Conflict
That forced the president to pay close attention to public opinion when going
to war and to justify the decision, since many middle-class families, and
voters, would feel the cost of war as their sons went abroad. The opposition to
the draft played a central role in the anti-war movement in the 1960s.
After Congress dismantled the draft in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, the
government instead relied on a professional volunteer army that was far more
removed from the daily life of many middle-class Americans.
The president could send troops into conflict without prompting a majority of
the country to start worrying about whether members of their families would
have to fight abroad.
Third, politicians no longer call on the nation to pay for the financial costs
of war. This was an essential element to wartime politics up through Vietnam.
During World War I, Congress expanded the progressive income tax and taxed
corporate profits.
During World War II, the government adopted a system of withholding taxes from
paychecks and vastly increased the number of Americans paying income taxes from
four million to 44 million. During the Korean War, taxes were raised and during
Vietnam, President Lyndon Johnson, in a politically ruinous move, got Congress
to pass a tax surcharge in 1968.
Today, no one is asked to sacrifice to pay for war. The conservative movement
shifted public debate to the right, and tax increases became much harder to
accomplish even in times of war. During President George W. Bush's
administration, for example, Congress cut taxes. As former Majority Leader Tom
DeLay once said, "Nothing in the face of war is more important than cutting
taxes." As with the draft, lowering the obligations required of citizens during
wartime has made it politically easier for presidents to enter into conflicts.
Strategically, the nation has also tended to fight wars that are different than
the massive ground troop operations of World War I, Korea, World War II and
Vietnam.
Before 9/11, the U.S. focused on short and limited wars, often against much
weaker nations, where the emphasis was on the use of air power rather than
ground troops.
The U.S. invasion of Grenada in 1983 boosted the morale of American foreign
policymakers and bolstered public opinion about the military, despite the
extremely limited nature of the operation. More significantly, Operation Desert
Storm in 1990-1991 constituted an important moment in the political history of
warfare.
After a huge build up and dramatic rhetoric, the U.S. drove Saddam Hussein out
of Kuwait quickly and without suffering many casualties. Even though the wars
in Afghanistan and Iraq required substantial commitments of ground forces and
lasted for long periods of time, the confidence from the success of Operation
Desert Storm has lived on.
Finally, there is the media. Since the advent of cable news in the 1980s, the
effect of any military operation on the public mind has diminished. The
fragmentation of the visual and print media gave Americans far more choices
about what to focus their attention on and when. Anyone who wanted to watch
evening television in the 1960s would have seen the nightly news about Vietnam,
but now they can choose to focus 24 hours on the travails of Charlie Sheen.
The competition among media outlets for limited audiences also creates immense
pressure to find the next big story. Following an initial period of saturation,
when every outlet jumps on a story such as Libya, there is a tendency to
quickly move on. Military operations such as those in Afghanistan can become
invisible to the media eye.
While it is relatively easily to go to war, legislators also have the capacity
to challenge the White House thereafter. Obama should remember that while
Congress has delegated power over sending troops to war, they have retained
considerable power to cause presidents political problems once troops are
abroad. Through hearings and threats of funding cuts, as well as by legislators
taking their case to the media, Congress can cause immense political problems
for the president.
Obama will finally make a speech to the nation about Libya, scheduled for 7:30
p.m. ET Monday. But the speech, coming long after American forces are already
in the middle of the conflict, is almost beside the point. What's more relevant
is we are already there with very little public debate.
Obama's decision fits into a long-standing pattern -- one that many should find
troubling -- of war becoming too easy to start, though not necessarily easy to
win. Unlike some areas of policy, where people may have a sense that
politicians need more flexibility, this is one area where the obstacles and
challenges should be great.
The opinions in this commentary are solely those of Julian Zelizer.
------------------------------------
Post message: [email protected]
Subscribe : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : [email protected]
List owner : [email protected]
Homepage : http://proletar.8m.com/Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
