Langevin Says Debate Over War Can Only Include Support For War
Last week, U.S. Representative James Langevin participated in the debate over H. Con. Res. 51, a resolution reasserting congressional authority to make the decision to declare war and requiring President Obama to end his unauthorized entry of the United States into the Libyan civil war within 15 days. Attempting to justify his opposition to the resolution, Langevin characterized his idea of what congressional oversight and debate over wars unilaterally declared by the President should consist of. Langevin said:
“Congress should continue to debate U.S. involvement in the Libyan effort, however we must do so smartly and in a manner that does not undermine our military efforts or global standing.”
What kind of debate does Congressman Langevin suggest, if the debate must not “undermine our military efforts”?
If Congress is debating whether specific military efforts are a violation of the Constitution and federal law, the entire purpose of the debate is to determine whether it is a good idea for those military efforts to continue. It may be legitimately be concluded in such a debate that specific military efforts that are found to be illegal should be undermined – and ended. A debate over such military efforts in which people are not allowed to suggest that the military efforts are mistaken is no debate at all.
It is worse to undermine the Constitution and the rule of law in the United States than to undermine illegal military efforts. Representative Langevin has sought to evade an open debate by seeking to associate criticism of the President’s unconstitutional rush to war with endangerment of American soldiers. He ought to remember that the most grave risks to American soldiers comes not through open debate in Congress, but through ill-advised, poorly planned entries into unnecessary wars that have taken place as a result of a Congress that is too weak to assert its authority and prevent the President from engaging in rash military adventurism.
