Congress Still Doesn't Want To Control Foreign Policy

Today's Libya votes were a great example of what I've been trying to say about executive authority and warmaking power. The operation in Libya seems to be unpopular, and President Obama's legal theories about its conduct are held in little esteem by most lawyers, so a majority of House of Representatives members voted to express their disapproval of it. Then when the time came to vote on a resolution that "would have cut off funding for American forces that are not engaged in support missions within the NATO-led coalition, like aerial refueling, reconnaissance, and planning," they reversed course and left the President with a free hand to keep doing what he wants.

And this, it seems to me, is the real story of presidential power over warmaking. It's not so much that we have executive branch power grabs as it is that congress pretty consistently fails to use the leverage that it actually has. Someone who was really determined to block the war in Libya could make an end to the bombing a condition of supporting a debt ceiling increase. When in the seventies congressional majorities were possessed of a strong and sincere desire to restrain Gerald Ford's conduct, they turned out to have a lot of ability to do so. And members of congress have always had a good success rate fighting and winning battles to keep military bases open, keep favored defense contracts flowing, etc. It's just that to win a political fight, you need to really care.