The use of Presidential power has an historical genealogy. Upon reviewing Madison’s progress report on the Constitutional Convention, Jefferson, who was in France at the time, responded with concern regarding the power of the presidency. He feared that the Constitution gave too much power to the President in foreign affairs. Nevertheless, he was mollified by Madison’s assertion that the universally trusted George Washington would become the first U.S. President. Further, he was assured that the Constitution reserved for Congress the sole right to declare war; for our founders felt it much more likely an unchecked executive might take the country into a war than that deliberative body which represented the voices of a broader constituency. The irony, of course, is that Jefferson as the third President of the United States took his country to war against the Ivory Coast without congressional approval. In fact, he never told Congress that he ordered the attack until a month after its conclusion. In Jefferson’s defense, he felt the Constitution gave him the power to respond to an eminent threat, which the pirates of the Ivory Coast presented to American ships. Since that time, American Presidents have taken this country into many foreign conflicts, sometimes with congressional approval and sometimes without. Considering the awesome power a modern President has, one would assume its exercise be subject to an honest assessment of eminent danger to our national security and of a proportionate response.

Now you might also assume that this assessment is done without the inflection or subversion of politics and with due consideration for the discrete use of U.S. power/influence. But Presidents never act in a political vacuum and often with little regard for any limit to their power—not even in the build-up to war. Supportive examples of this fact would fill a book. President Roosevelt allowed American ships to navigate shipping lanes patrolled by German subs. He knew if one of them was sunk it would be provocation for Congress to declare war. Pearl Harbor eventually gave him that provocation. President Johnson used a misleading report about an alleged incident in the Gulf of Tonkin to justify his request to conduct a “police action” against North Vietnam. The bill he shoved through Congress was actually prepared a month before the alleged incident (which of course did not actually occur). Once again, an American President won congressional approval to commence a war effort. President Reagan wanted to provide military support to the rebels in Nicaragua. When the Congress passed legislation to block his efforts, he authorized a clandestine and illegal operation to support the rebels with arms funded by selling weapons to Iran (the same country that held our embassy employees hostage right up to the day Reagan assumed office). He simply bypassed Congress, relying on his popularity with the American people to forestall any impeachment efforts. Clinton had NATO backing, but not Congress’, for his venture into Kosovo. Fortunately, the Bosnia affair turned out reasonably well. But he could not duplicate that success in Somalia. I think you get the picture without reference to what happened during the Bush administration. Sometimes, our Presidents act in response to eminent threats like Pearl Harbor or 911. Sometimes treaty obligations or other national interest intervene to force their hand like the Kuwait or South Korea invasions. Then there are times our Presidents go rogue of the Constitution and pursue military adventures in the name of what they believe are higher moral principles, as in the Bosnia intervention or the recent Libya bombing campaign. But they never act without political machinations or ramifications. Sometimes political tradeoffs can change the purpose or trajectory of a military campaign. For instance, President Johnson did not want to appear weak in fighting communists because he needed Senator Dirksen’s and Republican support to pass his social agenda. His steady escalation of support for that war was, by his own admission, an attempt to end that war sooner rather than later and to appease his critics on the right. President Bush gave far too much leeway to the war hawks in his administration. Given his move to the right on foreign policy, he was emboldened to push his “compassionate conservative” agenda of prescription drugs for the elderly and reform of Social Security (which still failed to win support from his own party). Currently, President Obama has courted favor with those Republicans who might support him on immigration reform as well as his attempts to deter the use of chemical weapons. In return for their support, he has acceded to the Foreign Relations Committee bill that purports to shift the battle’s momentum in favor of the rebels. In spite of all his rhetoric against involvement in a civil war, he would move America closer to a proxy war—not unlike the Russian’s Afghanistan war where we funded the mujahedeen (which included Osama Bin Laden’s forces, later to become al-Qaeda). At the same time, he is trying to assuage liberal angst by touting his proposed punitive military strike as a “limited” action.

My problem with all this wrangling is not the debate itself. It’s what is debated. Initially, the President defined his objective as deterring the use of chemical weapons on moral grounds. He quoted international agreements that nearly all nations have signed as testimony to his assessment and as justification for American action. So the President never asked for a declaration of war, nor did he propose a strategy to remove Assad from office or support one group over another in that country’s civil war. Clearly, the debate that should have ensued is whether the Administration’s proposed military strike is a valid act of deterrence and whether it represents the will of the international community. It is fair not only to critique the deterrence value of a military strike, but also to consider any potentially deleterious consequences. The use of cruise missiles is not “surgical” in the sense of removing a cancerous tumor, unless you consider taking out a liver or some other vital organ in the process. Congress and the international community should be weighing the President’s proposed form of deterrence against other options. Surely, there are more creative ways to isolate and pressure Assad than to rain cruise missiles upon his people. They seem to have suffered enough already from an internecine struggle to the death. Certainly there are better minds than mine who might be able to propose a more humane response to Assad’s barbarity. If we can obtain an agreement from the Free Syrian Army to divest its country of chemical weapons should they win their struggle, would it not be worth the effort to obtain a similar agreement from the Assad government? The latter might include an agreement not to use these weapons in exchange for non-interference in the Syrian civil war from all parties, including the Russians who claim their resupply of weapons was only a response to the West support of the rebels. Even if Iran cannot be persuaded to join such an agreement, any negotiations involving Iran would be beneficial. Given the West’s long range interest in the region, it would be better to include Iran than to continue the ongoing stalemate to any rapprochement with the regime in Tehran.

The President has raised a serious issue of international significance. Fortunately, he has asked for debate before exercising the enormous military power he has at his disposal. Given the enormity of that power, it behooves Congress and the international community to stay his hand AND provide more humane options. Every solution to a problem looks the same, if all you wield is a hammer.