The Democratic chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee reminded President Trump of Congress’s rightful role in war-making. The committee, chaired by Democrat Eliot Engel, is correct that “war powers reside in the Congress.”
It’s too bad that every time we’ve had a Democratic commander in chief, Engel fought against any effort to restrain the executive branch or assert congressional prerogatives.
Every single time Democratic presidents have wanted to go to war without congressional approval, Engel has clearly sided with the president and against congressional power (and frankly, against the Constitution). He took this obeisant stance on Kosovo, Libya, and Syria.
Clinton in 1999 sent U.S. forces, under NATO command, to bomb Serbian forces as part of the effort to aid Kosovo’s independence. In April 1999, Congress passed a bill, HR 1569, prohibiting ground troops in this war “unless such deployment is specifically authorized by law.”
Engel voted “nay” and even took to the House floor to oppose this bipartisan measure, declaring that Congress asserting its constitutional prerogative “aids and abets [Yugoslav strongman Slobodan] Milosevic” and “undermines the President.”
Requiring congressional approval before sending ground troops “aids and abets” a foreign strongman and “undermines the President.” That’s embarrassing partisanship, and it’s exactly the language we can expect from Republicans in the next few years. Engel handed them their talking points.
“Why would we want to make it difficult for the president to be the commander in chief?” Engel asked back then. “Why would we want to tie the hands of the president? Why would we want to hurt our men and women in the area?”
You might suspect that the George W. Bush years and the Iraq War would have made Engel value congressional war powers a bit more. You’d be wrong. When President Barack Obama injected the United States into Libya’s civil war in 2011 without congressional authorization, Engel cheered him on and signaled that Obama could go further without Congress.
One House resolution in June 2011 declared, “The President shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of units and members of the U.S. Armed Forces on the ground in Libya unless the purpose of the presence is to rescue a member of the Armed Forces from imminent danger.” The resolution also pointed out accurately that “the President has failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale based upon U.S. national security interests for current U.S. military activities regarding Libya.”
It called on Obama to provide his “justification for not seeking authorization by Congress for the use of military force in Libya,” and explained to Congress the “U.S. political and military objectives regarding Libya, including the relationship between the intended objectives and the operational means being employed to achieve them.”
Engel again voted no.
Then in August 2013, when Obama signaled he would launch a war against Syria, Engel appeared on Fox News Sunday to discuss the matter. After Republican Sen. Bob Corker said Obama should first go to Congress for authorization and then attack Syria, Engel half agreed. He said Obama should attack first and then ask Congress to approve his actions.
“I do agree with Senator Corker that I think Congress needs to be involved,” Engel said, “but perhaps not initially. Perhaps the president could start, and then Congress needs to resolve it and assent to it.”
I called and emailed the committee early Monday morning. I have not heard back as of publication.
