A blueprint for limiting war

The congressional proponents of various proposals being floated around Washington, D.C., to halt President George W. Bush's proposed troop "surge," or escalation, in Iraq would do well to examine the 1970 Cooper-Church Amendment of the Vietnam War. The amendment represents a successful example of how to proceed in placing limits on executive power, and as we approach the anniversary of this bill's introduction into Congress on May 1, 1970, perhaps history can help put the present into perspective.

While criticism of presidential decisions by members of Congress has been present in all of the wars the United States has fought, most notably the War of 1812, the Civil War and the Korean War, it was not until the Vietnam War that congressional questioning led to actual restrictions being placed on the president's use of the military with the passage of the Cooper-Church Amendment.

In 1970, the nation faced a situation in Vietnam similar to the one today in Iraq: a presidential escalation of an unpopular war. On April 30, President Richard Nixon announced that he was sending American and South Vietnamese forces into Cambodia. Nixon defended his decision in language that is strikingly similar to that used by President Bush, claiming that escalation was necessary to defeat the enemy and achieve American goals in Vietnam, maintain the credibility of the United States against its enemies, and demonstrate its will.

"If when the chips are down," Nixon told the nation, "the world's most powerful nation, the United States of America, acts like a pitiful, helpless giant, the forces of totalitarianism and anarchy will threaten free nations" around the world. "Does the richest and strongest nation in the history of the world," the president continued, "have the character to meet a direct challenge?" Substitute terrorism for totalitarianism and these words could have come from the White House today.

Moreover, the Nixon White House adopted a strategy of questioning the patriotism and loyalty of anyone who opposed the president's policy, claiming they did not support American troops that were under fire and defending the nation, and would embolden the enemy.

These arguments had successfully kept congressional doves from moving beyond public criticism to actions that would directly change the course of the war just as they have so far stymied the opponents of the war in Iraq.

In response to Nixon's sending of troops to Cambodia, Sens. John Sherman Cooper, R-Ky., and Frank Church, D-Idaho, introduced a resolution that called for the removal of American forces and a prohibition against them being sent back to Cambodia without congressional approval.

Speaking on behalf of the Cooper-Church Amendment, Church said it was time for the president to acknowledge what a large majority of Americans now recognized: the futility of a continued American military presence in Vietnam. It was time "for Congress to draw the line against an expanded American involvement" in the war and begin "to put an end to it."

If the executive branch would not respect the wishes of the majority of the people, Congress had to act.

The question was how to reverse the president's decision, restrict the executive's action and start the process of ending the war.

There were other proposals at the time that sought to establish timetables for the withdrawal of American forces or firm dates for the removal of all American troops from Vietnam. Yet, these failed to gain the support of a majority of senators because they were seen as too extreme and politically dangerous. Cooper and Church sought a measure that was limited but would be able to pass in the Senate, start to change the course of the war, and establish the precedent of congressional action in shaping policy.

Given that it was almost impossible for any action to please all parts of the opposition, this strategy made sense. For Church, it was crucial that Congress demonstrate its ability to limit the power of the president and that it win in the first major confrontation with the White House.

The Cooper-Church Amendment marked a milestone in American history: the first time that Congress restricted the deployment of troops during a war and voted against the wishes of a president. It looked to re-establish the Senate's rightful constitutional role to provide "advice and consent."

Congress should not, Church noted, conduct policy, but it should help in making it.

The passage of the Cooper-Church Amendment provides a lesson for today's Congress in seeking to restrict the actions of President Bush. It should begin with limited measures that will pass, bring the opponents of the war together, establish the power and duty of Congress to act on Iraq, and change the basis of the discussions on the war to what the majority of Americans seek: how to bring it to an end.