Our founders wisely intended to check the President’s power to unilaterally engage in armed hostilities with foreign nations.

They understood that no one — not even the President of the United States — should be empowered to force our nation to war without the presentation of evidence, debate, and deliberation that our system of advise and consent requires. That is why Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution makes it clear: The Congress shall have Power… to declare War.”  

Trump’s Syria attacks underline why Congress must reassert control of its constitutional War Powers.

Nerve gas is horrible. The use of such weapons is repugnant. Anyone with even an iota of humanity is against it. The problem is that the United States lacks credibility when voicing a moral outrage that is coupled with weapons deliveries, troops on the ground, and waffle words on regime change. Trump’s decision to bombard Syrian targets was not based on evidence presented or congressional approval, much less honest public debate.

Let’s step back for a moment:

Our Middle East credibility problem started well before Trump and even before Bush II destroyed Iraq based on a lie.  Support for aggressions and bad actors based on political expediency has defined our presence in the region since WW II.  Our government’s bellicose actions in recent decades have been neither moral nor strategic. They have eroded the foundations of the post war international institutions designed to bring broad and legitimate pressure to bear on human rights violators like Assad and his abettors.

And we are doing little to restore our standing. The US has not investigated our own war crimes since Sept 11, 2001. High profile violations of international humanitarian law continue in the form of illegal drone attacks that kill large numbers of civilians, indefinite detention of detainees, and the outsourcing of intelligence gathering and even murder to unaccountable corporate contractors. In a region with long memory, our hypocrisy — in word and deed – has alienated many potential friends and drastically limits US strategic options even as it paves the road for domination by our traditional geo-political adversaries, like Russia.

But with Trump (and his new neo-con advisor John Bolton) a whole new level of stupid and dangerous is at the table.  That is why restoring constitutional war powers has become an urgent national priority.

Trump, as we know, is a dangerous conman. Two weeks ago he spoke in favor of a total US withdrawal from Syria. Then just days later he hired John Bolton. Then came the FBI raid the office of his personal lawyer. He tried to change the subject to the alleged gas attack in Syria, and then launched strikes in Syria with Great Britain and France — the last two countries from the once vast “Western Alliance” still willing to jump when an American president calls for airstrikes.

At home Trump is in the middle of what has clearly morphed into a constitutional crisis of epic proportion that is already testing the legal, moral, and political fabric of our nation. As we work to restore the rule of law, re-establish respect for evidence based decision-making, and mobilize our communities for the civic battle of our lives, we have to make sure that Trump cannot manipulate and endanger us with military adventurism and/or threats of nuclear fist strike.

Congressman Ted Lieu  the southern California Congressman agrees. He decries, “the lack of any coherent strategy in Syria.” He points out that a few days ago “the Trump Administration signaled that it was okay with allowing Assad to stay in power, even though Assad had already killed hundreds of thousands of people in Syria and previously used chemical weapons.”   He notes that a just few days later, “the Trump Administration attacked the Assad regime.”  Lieu, himself a colonel in the Air Force Reserves, has denounced Trump’s unauthorized use of military force. Lieu knows something about law and the armed forces having served in the United States Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Corps from 1995 to 1999.

Together with Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey, Lieu introduced the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017, and eminently sane piece of legislation he explains here.

Forty-five years ago, after the public had turned massively against the Vietnam War, Congress moved to restore its constitutional mandate by passing The War Powers Resolution of 1973  — to check the president’s ability to commit the United States to armed conflict without the express consent of the U.S. Congress. Since that time war powers have nevertheless been abused presidents both Republican and Democratic. A notoriously egregious example was President Bill Clinton’s attack on Al Queda camps in1998, timed to delay proceedings on his own impeachment. Wouldn’t it have been better if we debated that attack back when most Americans had still never heard of Al Queda?  

The wisdom of the framers in checking the unilateral war making power of the President is evident under any circumstance. Those representatives closest to the people who suffer the pain and desolation of war should be empowered to decide when the use of force is justified. But under our current circumstances—with a manifestly ignorant, self centered, and reckless president making spur of the moment decision based on gut feelings rather than evidence or logic it becomes critical that we cut him off.

Please tell your member of Congress to be on the right side of history.  When irate Americans passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973, Richard Nixon vetoed it – but was then overridden by Congress. 

And just this week Senators Bob Corker and Tim Kaine’s proposed new Authorization for the Use of Military Force, or AUMF, which will further enable the president’s war-making ability. Wherever he wants. On whomever he wants.

Take action and alert our senators immediately that we are opposed to this bill!

To stop Trump from using war as a tool of public manipulation, we must again band together to restore Congressional authority.  It will take millions of us to check this out-of-control administration.  Let Congress know we want restraints on Trump and future administrations.  War is too serious to be in the hands of a single person, especially an ignorant and malevolent man like Trump.

Take-ActionThe following guest post by Janet Weil originally appeared on PINK TANK. Jane Weil is a longtime CODEPINKer and Co-founder of SF 99% Coalition.

10 Reasons Why Americans Opposed, and Averted, a US War on Syria

As I took part in rallies, marches, vigils, conference calls, personal conversations and meetings in the San Francisco Bay Area during the recent crisis over Syria, these are the reasons I heard that Americans opposed even a “limited” US strike on that country:

1 – It won’t do any good. The insanity of killing people with cruise missiles and other conventional weapons to “send a message” that killing people with poison gas is WRONG, was repeated over and over, to good effect.

2 – We’re supporting Al-Qaeda now, really?! I heard this at the August 4 Restore the 4th rally in San Francisco as this crisis started to build. I have the sense that this was mostly a libertarian and right-wing perspective, though Dennis Kucinich came down hard on this as well.

3 – Don’t get involved in someone else’s civil war. People expressed overall wariness not only about Al-Nusra and/or Al-Qaeda in Syria but also unease about the violent and divided Syrian “rebels.” Sometimes an ugly “let the bastards kill each other” or “they’re not worth us getting involved” message was a barely hidden subtext to this oppositional messaging.

4 – Iraq. The US didn’t help that country. Yeah, no kidding.  For millions in this country who believed the propaganda in 2002-2003, the lessons from the horror of the Iraq War are finally sinking in. Many people saw a US “strike” as the beginning of Iraq II, and they weren’t having it.

5 – We’re not going to war for Obama. Republicans and Libertarians were the first and some of the strongest opposition; see Bruce Gagnon’s analysis. Some of this opposition was based in a racist desire to thwart our first “black” (really, biracial) president regardless of the issue, but some was principled opposition based on a lack of trust and respect for Obama’s policies overall, including his “dirty” drone strikes and special operations in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

6 – It costs too much, and we need the money at home. The Bring Our War $$ Home messaging has been circulating since 2009, and many people across the political spectrum picked up on it. Also sequester cuts happening simultaneously with this latest propaganda push, and the weak economy, added to the force of “we can’t afford it.”

7 – Our military has been stretched and overdeployed for too long. Active duty troops photographed themselves opposing another war – an unusual and brave move link. People didn’t believe Kerry’s/Obama’s reassurances about how limited a US (air) war on Syria would be.

8 – Afghanistan. The US is still engaged in a “hot” war, one that is still sending young Americans home in coffins or wheelchairs. Even if the mainstream media can’t be bothered to cover that war, Americans, especially veterans and military families haven’t forgotten.

9 – Libya. Americans are (dimly) aware that all is not right in Libya and there have been many unintended, negative consequences from the US/NATO air war there.

10 – The UK Parliament voted NO. Last but certainly not least. It’s one thing to say, write, chant “Say no to war” — it’s quite another, and more mobilizing, thing for our country’s closest ally to do so in a public vote of their legislature, pushed by their citizens. The vote being close didn’t even matter – it was an historic NO, and a pivotal moment in this crisis – the push to “take it to Congress” really took off after this vote.

Final thoughts: This crisis isn’t over, and the US warships, jets and other machinery of destruction are still hanging fire in the eastern Mediterranean, at vast taxpayer expense. Going forward, we in peace/antiwar organizations, from whatever political perspectives, need to amplify these “talking points of the people” and stay ready to take action again.

There isn’t a single “movement” against war, but an informal, multifocal opposition from across the political spectrum. “Yelling at empty buildings” aka the huge marches of the past especially in DC, may be a tactic that’s outlived its usefulness. Americans live on our phones these days, and we found ourselves ready to use them to call Congress. The timing of this crisis was helpful – we were able to show up at representatives’ town halls during the August recess and speak our minds in person. For now, that was enough to avert a war. More may well be needed later in the year, as the military-industrial-media complex hasn’t gone away. But for now, let’s reflect on a rare, and much-needed victory, staying humble and nimble for the challenges ahead.


Did you enjoy this post? If so, then Share it on Facebook and Tweet it!