Why We Began a Petition to Congress
Last week at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, President Bush expressed exasperation
at reporters' questions about any discussion of attacking Iraq. Groping for
words, the president said that the public seemed to be "kind of churning."
Standing by, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld chimed in with the word, frenzy,
to describe the situation. It's an odd response from the very leaders who have
been talking on and off about military plans to effect a "regime change"
in Iraq for the last six months.
Frustration is the word I would use to describe the public's mood. Frustration
at the lack of solid information, frustration at the "we will, we might,
we're determined to, we'll let you know later" statements that have come
from the president, frustration at the absence of a sustained critique of all
this from the alleged opposition party. My colleague, Ellen duBois, and I certainly
felt that frustration two weeks ago.
We found relief when we decided to use an old-fashioned right -- to petition
the government -- to recall Congress to its unique power to declare, or not
declare, war. We sent our petition to some 70 of our colleagues around the country
asking them to sign and forward it. Our appeal to American historians to urge
members of Congress to debate the "risks, costs, and wisdom" of an
attack on Iraq resonated with our colleagues and friends. Now 1,000 historians
have added their signatures, representing historians in every state in the union.
The great majority teach in colleges and universities, but there are high school
teachers, graduate students, public historians and independent scholars in the
mix. The rapidity with which signatures flowed in indicates that our frustration
was not unique.
Americans, as President Bush's remarks suggest, feel agitated by the drumbeat
of remarks about possible military action backed up by new stories of invasion
preparations. For historians the feeling is more acute, for they teach America's
foreign policy traditions, its constitutional provisions for war-making, and
past presidential behavior.
The United States has fought proxy wars, sponsored covert operations, engaged
in UN actions, and endured nearly a half century of something called a cold
war, but the Bush administration's plans to invade Iraq, if acted upon, would
be unique in our history. Never before have the leaders of our nation seriously
entertained the idea of making an unprovoked attack on another country. As Arthur
Schlesinger, Jr. recently wrote,
"Unilateral preventive war is neither legitimate nor moral. It is illegitimate
and immoral. For more than 200 years we have not been that kind of country."
The Cold War badly battered many precedents in our history. One of the greatest
losses was the abrogation by Congress of its war-making powers. Article 1, Section
8 is quite explicit in giving Congress, not the President, the power to declare
war. The practical effect of this constitutional provision is that deliberations
must precede the awful choice of going to war. While the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution
and the debate before the Gulf War did involve Congress, it has not formally
declared war since the day after Pearl Harbor when President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt requested such a declaration in December 1941.
Mindful of the way those powers had been eroded, Congress passed the War Powers
Act of 1973 which enabled the president to respond to an attack, but required
Congressional approval within 60 days. Hardly a practical measure, this fig
leaf honoring the Constitution kept alive the principle, though President Bill
Clinton ignored the suit brought by then California Representative Tom Campbell
against him for violating the act with the bombing of Kosovo.
What are we to make of our present situation when the President openly declares
his determination to oust Saddam Hussein without involving Congress or the people
in his decision-making?, of his telling the public repeatedly that he will make
up his mind one of these days, as though he were a king instead of man who swore
to uphold the Constitution! This is not what the Founding Fathers intended in
charging Congress, representing the voters, to make such a decision.
Nearly as disturbing during this long summer of saber-rattling has been the
lack of an effective opposition to the campaign to ready Americans for a violent
"regime change" in Iraq. A few voices have recently been raised --
most notably those of Brent Scowcroft, John Kerry, James Baker, and Dick Armey
but there has been no sustained debate on the president's intentions from representatives
and senators in Congress? Congressional support of the president's avowed intentions
has been equally scattered.
Historians are not so foolish as to think they can stop a juggernaut or put
starch into the 535 wilted congressmen, congresswomen, and senators who represent
them. We do think that by petitioning Congress we might set an example for others
to follow in a collective effort to rejuvenate civic culture in this the oldest
of the worlds democracies.
Our plan is to present the petition with its signatures to the leaders of both the House and Senate soon. We urge all of your to join us and will take advantage of the History News Network to keep you apprised of the exact time and place of delivery, as the time draws near. Please read the petition below and add your voice.
(Click here to read the names of the signers of the petition.)
AMERICAN HISTORIANS' PETITION TO CONGRESS
We, the undersigned American historians, from all fifty states, urge our members of Congress to assume their aConstitutional responsibility to debate and vote on whether or not to declare war on Iraq.
We do so because Americans deserve to hear their representatives deliberate about a possible war, lest such a momentous course of action be undertaken by the President alone after a public airing filled with rumors, leaks, and speculations.
We ask our senators and representatives to do this because Congress has not
asserted its authority to declare war for over half a century, leaving the president
solely in control of war powers to the detriment of our democracy and in clear
violation of the Constitution.
We believe it is particularly urgent that Congress reassert its authority at
this time since an attack on Iraq, if made, would be an American initiative.
Since there was no discussion of Iraq during the 2000 presidential campaign,
the election of George Bush cannot be claimed as a mandate for an attack. Only
a debate by Americans' elected representatives can engage the public in a serious
consideration of the costs, risks, and wisdom of such a war.
IF YOU WISH TO SIGN, PLEASE SEND YOUR NAME AND INSTITUTION TO
APPLEBY@HISTORY.UCLA.EDU.
Illustration by Sabrina Krewin