Iran and Vietnam

This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

The New York Sun

If America is to go to war with Iran, let it be declared by Congress in the proper, tried-and-true, constitutional way. It’s not that we’re loath to appear against the regime that is ruling Iran today and is on the attack across the Middle East. We have no taste for appeasement. We’ve had our fill, though, of mere authorizations to use military force, such as we tried at, say, Vietnam and Iraq.

We make this point because of the confrontation that is gathering in Washington over what to do after the attacks in the Gulf of Oman. President Trump is being urged — by such hawks as the National Security Adviser, John Bolton, and Senator Cotton — to take a hard line. The Democratic leaders on the Hill, though, are warning against going to war without a say-so from Congress.

They’re both right, as far as we’re concerned. It’s not that President Trump, or any other president, lacks the inherent power to spring into action against a foe when our country, or interests or allies, are in danger. A president can do this with or without Congress. Nor are authorizations to use military force legally inadequate. A new authorization might even satisfy Congress.

It would not, though, satisfy the Sun. Its current editorial custodians are of the Vietnam generation, which went to war on the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. They watched, with a growing sense of gall, as the cause, and the sacrifice, of our GIs was undermined by a peace movement prepared to treat with our enemy until our cause was betrayed on Capitol Hill. Congress forced our retreat and cut off our Free Vietnamese allies.

How could that have happened? Our own view is that door was left ajar by Congress in the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. It may be likely that at least some of the attacks on our vessels cited by Congress never occurred. Even if all the attacks were real, though, the Tonkin Gulf Resolution was flawed. It bears a careful read as our President and Congress wrestle with what ought to be done today.

The Tonkin Gulf Resolution’s first line declared its purpose — “to promote the maintenance of international peace and security in southeast Asia.” What a contrast with a real-McCoy-type declaration such as that issued on, say, December 8, 1941, against Imperial Japan. With the third word it began stating its purpose — declaring war and “making provisions to prosecute the same.”

It has one “whereas” — that Japan had committed “unprovoked acts of war” against us. And it had one resolve — that the state of war “thrust upon” us “is hereby formally declared” and the president is “authorized and directed” to “employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan … .”

Now the famous lines “. . . and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.” Period. Full stop. That is it, 166 words. What a contrast to the Tonkin Gulf, which rattled on about the “principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law,” and maundered about the threat to “world” peace.

The 1941 declaration — unlike the Tonkin resolution — offered no reassurances that America lacked “territorial, military or political ambitions” in Southeast Asia but rather “desires only that these people should be left in peace to work out their destinies.” Nor, contra Tonkin, did the 1941 declaration include blather about how the resolution would expire when the President or Congress terminated it.

Tonkin was practically an engraved invitation to the anti-war movement, which promptly swung into action. Sure enough, when the going got rough, the Congress did — in January 1971 — repeal the Tonkin Gulf resolution. It moved in 1973 to restrict presidential war-powers. And in 1975, to cut off our Free Vietnamese allies. A population the size of Eastern Europe’s fell into the night of communistic tyranny.

Broadly speaking, something similar — where we won the war but gave it away in Congress — happened in Iraq. And now we face Iran. The purpose of going to Congress is not to authorize President Trump. He has inherent powers. The purpose of a proper war declaration is to secure the Congress so that it will be so bound to the fight that there’s no turning back.

________

Image: Drawing by Elliott Banfield, courtesy of the artist.


The New York Sun

© 2024 The New York Sun Company, LLC. All rights reserved.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. The material on this site is protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used.

The New York Sun

Sign in or  Create a free account

By continuing you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use