CLINTON & BAGHDAD AIR ATTACK.   Term Paper ID:20846 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: President's June 26, 1993, bombing of Iraq in context of legal-historical presidential/Congressional struggle over war powers.... More...

5 Pages / 1125 Words 3 sources, 10 Citations, TURABIAN Format $20.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: President's June 26, 1993, bombing of Iraq in context of legal-historical presidential/Congressional struggle over war powers. Paper Introduction: President Clinton's decision to send cruise missiles to bomb an intelligence center in Baghdad won wide support from Congress, but it also reopened a long-running debate over White House consultations with Congress. The operations raised questions about war-making authority because it was Clinton's first unilateral use of U.S. force in a time of multi-lateral operations from Somalia to Bosnia. Clinton ordered the June 26, 1993 attack in response to what he called "compelling evidence" that Iraq had attempted to assassinate former President George Bush when he visited Kuwait in April. Sixteen suspects in the alleged attack, several of whom are said to have confessed to involvement in a plot to kill Bush, are facing charges in Kuwait. In the five-minute attack, two Navy ships, the destroyer USS Peterson and the cruiser USS Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. Some analystsbelieve that Clinton, who now is facing a troubling decision over whetherto put Americans at risk to help end the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina,apparently believes protecting his Presidential prerogatives is lessimportant than obtaining political cover by sharing the responsibility withCongress.[5] President Bush sought Congressional approval for the American-ledmilitary operation to drive Iraqi invaders from Kuwait in 1991, but he didso under pressure, portraying his action as a courtesy to Congress, and notsomething he was obliged to do. When President Clinton stated that the attack against President Bushwas an attack against the United States and against all Americans--and thatsuch an action against the nation could not go unanswered--most lawmakersendorsed that sentiment. Since the mainargument in getting involved in Bosnia is a moral one, the people'srepresentatives ought to have a say in this matter--according to Raven-Hansen.[8] Some members of Congress believed the latest attack on Iraqunderscored the need to revamp the widely disputed War Powers act.According to Dellums, the War Powers act, in the context of the 199 s, doesnot serve the country well. Sixteen suspects inthe alleged attack, several of whom are said to have confessed toinvolvement in a plot to kill Bush, are facing charges in Kuwait.[2] Inthe five-minute attack, two Navy ships, the destroyer USS Peterson and thecruiser USS Chancellorsville in the Persian Gulf, launched 23 Tomahawkcruise missiles. Peter Raven-Hansen of the George Washington University school of lawsaid that it would be nearly impossible for President Clinton to argue thathe could send troops to the Balkans without some kind of Congressionalapproval. In the cold-war period, the United States used force reactively.This allowed U.S. With this latest attack on Iraq, however, it was seenby many as a test of whether the Clinton administration would consult--orsimply notify--Congress when it decides to use force. [1 ]Lewis, A4.----------------------- 8 Scholars have estimated that presidents have dispatched forcesabroad between 12 and 2 times, but that Congress has only formallydeclared war on five occasions: the War of 1812, the Spanish-American War,the Mexican-American War, World War I, and World War II.[1 ] In view ofthis history, it is unlikely that any act of Congress will change the factthat presidents can and may exercise their power to send troops undercertain conditions, since the Constitution allows them that privilege inthe name of diplomacy. The law requires the President to notify Congress in atimely fashion when American troops are being sent abroad with a strongprobability that they will engage in combat. Many scholars, however, say that the developingpost-cold-war model for the use of American forces is one in which theUnited States contributes troops to a multinational force under the controlof the United Nations or some other international organization. [7]"Remember Grenada?" Wall Street Journal, 3 June 1993, A14. Although the Constitution explicitly grants Congress thepower to declare war, recent presidents have resisted the notion that theyare obliged to deal with lawmakers over dispatching troops. "War Powers: An Old Debate Clinton May Resolve." NewYork Times, 8 May 1993, A4."Remember Grenada?" Wall Street Journal, 3 June 1993, A14.----------------------- [1]Gregory J. Officials did not consultCongress on the specific course of action, but the White House apparentlyhad talked to some senior members about the possibility of a militaryresponse. forces inlengthy conflicts. In this case, the administration attempted to notify congressionalleaders shortly before the weekend attack. In addition, a senior White House officialhas suggested that President Clinton, unlike many of his predecessors, alsobelieves Congress should have a role in such decisions. In view of this,some have concluded that Clinton bombed Iraq in the beginning of hisadministration in order to give the appearance of a strong presidency.[7]He is determined to end the public's conception of the Democratic party asone of being dovish, since many felt that this ideology put the Democratsoutside the public mainstream. force in a time ofmulti-lateral operations from Somalia to Bosnia. [2]Ibid. Why limit the attack?[4] On June 28, 1993, Clinton sent a letter to Congress formallynotifying members of the attack. [8]Lewis, A4. Their power to conductdiplomacy as detailed in the Constitution, they argued, was enough to allowthem to dispatch troops. Members of Congress traditionally have ceded to a president the rightto order lightening strikes that do not risk entangling U.S. He stated that he hoped the Presidentwould have entered in a new era by presenting this situation first to theinternational community, and then drumming up allied and public support inthe process. Lewis, "War Powers: An Old Debate Clinton May Resolve," NewYork Times, 8 May 1993, A4. In May, 1993, President Clinton stated that he wouldcertainly seek some form of Congressional backing for any use of Americanforces in Bosnia. [9]Bowens, 1751. His decision to seek resolution in bothhouses endorsing the Persian Gulf War came after intense debate in theWhite House as to whether he was setting a bad precedent. Iraq reported that three of the missiles went astray,killing or wounding eight civilians. Others, such as Foreign Relations Committee member Richard G. Even some liberals saluted the president for therestraint involved in the attack, stating that if he had bombed during theday--killing many people--they would have been outraged, but the presidentacted with commendable restraint.[3] However, liberal Representative Ron Dellums (Democrat, California)was one who opposed the attack. [5]Neil A. Hamilton (Democrat, Indiana), to draft a revisedversion. [4]Ibid., 1751. presidents to argue that they could not await the time-consuming process of having Congress declare war. "Bombing, Widely Back on Hill, Reopens War PowersDebate." Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 3 July 1993, 175 -1751.Lewis, Neil A. Others believe that a renewed debate over the president'sauthority would be a waste of time, since it is well established that thePresident is the commander-in-chief.[9] Although the debate over Congressional--Presidential prerogativesintensified after the Vietnam War, it has existed since the United Stateswas formed. Bowens, "Bombing, Widely Backed on Hill, Reopens WarPowers Debate," Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 3 July 1993, 175 . BibliographyBowens, Gregory J. Dellums is working with House Foreign AffairsCommittee Chairman Lee H. It calls for the troops to beremoved from foreign territory within 9 days unless Congress explicitlygives approval for them to remain.[6] The law has proven largely ineffective because of Presidentialresistance and the willingness of Congress to stand aside and allow theWhite House to assume the political risks of sending troops abroad.However, in the case of Bosnia, both opponents and supporters of militaryintervention in Congress have made it clear that they want an active rolein the decision to send troops. Indeed, some Democrats, who had criticized Republican presidentsfor failing to consult Congress formally before using force, appeared eagerto bend toward their party's presidents. [3]Ibid. According to Floyd D.Spence (Republican, South Carolina), if the need to hit Iraq was so urgentthat Clinton could not consult Congress, than why not do more than knockdown one building? As have Republican presidents before him,he described the letter as consistent with the War Powers Resolution of1973, a formulation designed to sidestep the question of whether that lawis constitutional. From the beginning of his campaign, Clinton had sought to distancehimself from the Democrats of the past 12 years, in terms of his militarypolicy. In recent years, the debate has been framed around the War PowersAct, adopted by Congress in 1973 as America's involvement in the VietnamWar was ending. The situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina has been handled somewhatdifferently. Clinton ordered the June 26, 1993 attack in response to what hecalled "compelling evidence" that Iraq had attempted to assassinate formerPresident George Bush when he visited Kuwait in April. Lugar(Republican, Indiana), said of the failure to consult that if it succeeds,people will think it was a good idea, but if it fails, it will beconsidered a disaster that no one would support. Furthermore, ifPresident Clinton, a Democrat, follows the albeit grudging lead of aRepublican President, he could help to set a pattern. [6]Ibid. Congress is compelled by the Constitution to deliberate anddecide if it will give formal authority to do this. That tougher message, of course, was because of his draft statusas a young man, as well as his stance on gays in the military. President Clinton's decision to send cruise missiles to bomb anintelligence center in Baghdad won wide support from Congress, but it alsoreopened a long-running debate over White House consultations withCongress.[1] The operations raised questions about war-making authoritybecause it was Clinton's first unilateral use of U.S. In answer to this, the administration maintained that it hadthe right to act unilaterally under provisions of the United Nationscharter that permit nations to act in self-defense. Suchcircumstances allow for a more deliberate consideration by Congress. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.