Some anti-war arguments
make less sense than others.
Shortly after 9/11, critics began dismissing the notion that we
should, or even could, be at war with terrorists. There's no
universally agreed-upon definition of terrorism, they argued. It's
not a traditional war with states, armies and objectives. Dealing
with terrorists is a matter for law enforcement, diplomats and
social workers, they insisted.
For the most part, these were baseless objections. There are people
trying to kill us, and we must stop them. After 9/11 was followed
by Madrid, London, Baghdad, Bali and a host of foiled plots here
and overseas, no one can seriously doubt this is a war by any name
-- which is why today hardly anyone seriously raises such
nonsensical objections.
One objection, though, is more troubling -- and relevant. Wars,
whether they're announced by a congressional declaration (World War
II) or are undeclared (the Korean War), have monumental
constitutional implications.
During wartime, the constitution gives the president the power to
fight with any resources Congress makes available. The executive is
expected to do what it takes to protect the nation. That's a
problem, because presidents might abuse that power. They certainly
have in the past.
Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and Richard
Nixon all permitted abuses of power during wartime, including the
collection of intelligence on political enemies who were in no way
national security threats. And since the battle against global
terrorists appears open-ended, with no defined field of combat,
President Bush's critics are afraid declaring war offers a recipe
for the abuse of presidential power.
It appears an unsolvable dilemma. The Constitution says presidents
need the freedom to defend the nation, but the nation needs to be
reassured that presidents aren't destroying the personal freedoms
the Constitution guarantees.
Unlike the laughable debate over whether the war metaphor is
appropriate to describe the world in which we live, the fear of the
potential abuse of presidential power is a legitimate
concern.
This problem is particularly important in protracted wars. The
longer the war, the more desperate the country becomes to win.
States become more authoritarian. They centralize decision-making.
They curb liberties. They increase taxation. All in an effort to
generate the power to win.
In the process, they may become a garrison state, destroying the
civil society the state was created to protect, and, ironically,
making the state less powerful. Slave states can't generate as much
will to win as free markets and open societies.
The challenge in an extended war is to sustain the things that make
a nation strong. That means not just fighting the enemy, but
preserving liberties. The challenge is make sure neither the
terrorists nor the executive become a threat to the nation.
When President Bush rechristened the fight against terrorism during
the State of the Union address as the "long war," he got to the
essence of the matter. What America has to do is prepare to fight
and win a long war -- the right way.
It can be done; it has before. The nation managed to endure more
than 40 years of struggle with the Soviet Union and in the end
emerged victorious, free and powerful.
While presidents may need to take extraordinary measures to make
the nation safe, as the war lengthens, as the nature of the threat
and what needs to be done are better understood, the three branches
of government should work together to find ways to ensure that
legal protections are added that both allow them to continue to use
appropriate tools to provide security and to ensure to safeguard
civil liberties.
The Patriot Act offers a case in point. In the wake of 9/11,
Congress and the administration decided the law was necessary and
reasonable. Four years later, they revisited their decision. Some
provisions were modified. Some additional oversight measures were
added. And lawmakers reauthorized the law. That's they way the
system should work.
This is the same approach the president and the Congress should
take to administer the National Security Agency's surveillance
program that intercepts communications between possible terrorists
and U.S. persons.
No one can question that the president should have the means to
intercept communications that might prevent a terrorist attack. But
if the description of the NSA program provided by the
administration is accurate, then current laws do not provide the
means for efficient judicial and legislative oversight. Making the
NSA surveillance program, like the Patriot Act, the right weapon
for the long war will require the president and the Congress to
work together.
They've done so before, and must again, to make all Americans safer
and to safeguard our liberties over the long-term.
James
Carafano is a senior research
fellow for defense and homeland security at The Heritage
Foundation.
First appeared on FoxNews.com