Make War

With the Iraqi crisis reigniting the historic struggle between the presidency and the Congress over war powers, federal Judge Harold H. Greene has made the startling claim that the judiciary can intervene under certain circumstances when "action by the courts would appear to be the only available means to break the stalemate." Another federal judge, Royce Lamberth, sticking to tradition, has issued a contradictory ruling that the courts lack the "expertise, resources and authority" to intrude in such a "political" question.

PHILADELPHIA -- I'm surprised at the fuss over the National Intelligence Estimate that says the Iraq war made the terrorist threat worse. Did it take a leaked report by America's 16 intelligence agencies to confirm the obvious? By now, can anyone except the Bush team deny that administration policy has fueled a new generation of jihadi terrorists? The president's belated effort to counter the intelligence leak by declassifying selected bits of the report only confirmed the essential message: This administration's Iraq policies have been a gift to al-Qaida and its imitators around the globe.

Just call it "The Stadium With No Name!"George is probably safe but he has a secret re-election strategy just in case. One whiff of trouble and we make war on Kirghizia.

POLICY HOW THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY HIJACKED THE CONSTITUTION By Peter Irons. Metropolitan Books. 308 pages. Conservative judicial scholars love the Founding Fathers, and they have created a legal theory called "originalism" in which the founders' words essentially are carved in stone. If you're stuck with a complicated legal question, just think about what James Madison would do. "The Constitution means what the delegates of the Philadelphia Convention and of the state ratifying conventions understood it to mean; not what we judges think it should mean," Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said in a 2001 speech.

After the first few days of the war, Howard County resident Mary Jane Wright had to turn off her television -- at least once in a while."As a military mom, it's hard to stay away from the TV. . . . I find myself searching every face to see if I can see my son. When you walk away from the TV, you think, 'Maybe if I stay 24 hours a day I'll see him,' " says the mother of U.S. Army Staff Sergeant Donald Kahrs. "But I want to have the strength and the health to get through this."The compelling images of Patriot anti-missiles blowing up Scuds, TV reporters scrambling to put on gas masks and American prisoners of war reciting anti-war sentiments have held Ms. Wright, along with millions of other Americans, rapt.

JAMES K. POLK was the first president to snooker the U.S. into a war. In 1846, he sent troops into disputed territory to goad Mexico into attacking. It worked. Congress, which he'd duped, had no choice except to declare war. Polk captured his prize -- California and the rest of what is now our Southwest.Thus the second U.S. war of conquest. The first: grabbing the country from its original residents, who, in a geographic stupor, we called Indians. It also was our second under the Constitution (the poorly waged business of 1812 having preceded it)

WASHINGTON - Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California was not pleased with the president's speech at West Point, in which he outlined the necessity for pre-emption against nations or groups that threaten this country. "I think this is a predicate for an attack on Iraq," the perceptive Democrat explained, "and I'm very concerned about it. I think it would be a terrible mistake for the United States unilaterally to attack Iraq, and to do so without any congressional authorization." Eleven years ago, we had a similar debate, about the same enemy, with a president of the same name.

WASHINGTON -- The Clinton administration has subtly shifted the aims of NATO airstrikes against Yugoslavia, giving military officials a more achieveable goal while granting politicians a means to end the bombing without necessarily halting the slaughter in Kosovo.But as they hedge their bets, both President Clinton and top NATO officials are giving no signs of ending the air campaign, which will soon enter a far more dangerous phase when allied planes begin to target Serbian tanks and artillery.

I RECENTLY returned from an emergency public health mission to Iraq where I helped assess the consequences of a war on the civilian population, which has in many ways been reduced to the status of refugees. Nearly 60 percent of Iraqis, about 14 million people, depend entirely on government-provided food rations that, by international standards, represent the minimum for human sustenance. Unemployment is greater than 50 percent, and the majority of those who work earn between $4 and $8 a month.

Lund, Sweden. Last year was too good to be true. Not only did it bring the end of the Cold War but it was the first time in 31 years that no new hot war had started. But now, so soon into the New Year, we are on the familiar treadmill again.There have been 127 wars in the 46 years since the end of the Second World War. At the peak, in 1987, 27 wars were under way, the most since 1700. On average, the annual war-inflicted death toll has been five times greater in this century than the last and eight times greater than the 18th.

The reconstructed version of Sam Fuller's World War II movie The Big Red One plays the Charles tomorrow, Monday and Thursday and at a gala screening Thursday at the AFI Silver in Silver Spring. With 47 minutes added to its 116-minute release time, the movie is a must-see for devotees of war films - a revelation, if not exactly a masterwork. Twenty-five years ago, Fuller's film swam against a riptide of hits like The Empire Strikes Back and The Blues Brothers, buoyed only by the star power of a cast that includes the Star Wars saga's Mark Hamill and The Dirty Dozen's Lee Marvin.

THE STICKING POINT when it comes to a doctrine of pre-emptive war is that in almost every conceivable instance such a war would have to be based on intelligence (of the spycraft kind) - on knowing what the chosen enemy was up to. And the problem with intelligence - as David Kay's report to Congress yesterday on the continuing search for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction should remind us - is that it isn't always right. That intelligence can sometimes be wrong is further clouded by another problem: The public generally has only the haziest idea of the nature of the intelligence that the White House is receiving.

We think of war and we think of airplanes. But when Orville and Wilbur Wright invented the airplane a century ago, they did not envision massive aerial bombardments of "shock and awe." In fact, the Ohio brothers once thought their invention would become the great deterrent to warfare. It was an idea shared by many after the inception of flight. War would become practically impossible, the brothers thought, because the scouting done by aircraft would equalize opposing nations with information on each other's movements, preventing surprise attacks.

I RECENTLY returned from an emergency public health mission to Iraq where I helped assess the consequences of a war on the civilian population, which has in many ways been reduced to the status of refugees. Nearly 60 percent of Iraqis, about 14 million people, depend entirely on government-provided food rations that, by international standards, represent the minimum for human sustenance. Unemployment is greater than 50 percent, and the majority of those who work earn between $4 and $8 a month.

PARIS - The first prediction from the political science students here, some of the brightest young adults in the world, is presented without wavering. Yes, they agree, all 30 of them, the United States is going to use its military against Iraq regardless of what the rest of the world wants. And, again without dissent, they say that would be a mistake. But what should the United States do about Saddam Hussein? What should the rest of the world do when it sees the United States as arrogant, and, more important, when it disagrees with its course?

WASHINGTON - Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California was not pleased with the president's speech at West Point, in which he outlined the necessity for pre-emption against nations or groups that threaten this country. "I think this is a predicate for an attack on Iraq," the perceptive Democrat explained, "and I'm very concerned about it. I think it would be a terrible mistake for the United States unilaterally to attack Iraq, and to do so without any congressional authorization." Eleven years ago, we had a similar debate, about the same enemy, with a president of the same name.

CAN PRESIDENT Bush take the country into war in the Persian Gulf without the approval of Congress? The question is heading toward decisive tests, legal and political. The answer could have profound consequences for our constitutional system and our internal peace.The president has moved very far toward war without asking for the consent of Congress. After Iraq gobbled up Kuwait in August, he sent a large American armed force to Saudi Arabia. Three weeks ago he ordered that force almost doubled, to give it an offensive capability.

We think of war and we think of airplanes. But when Orville and Wilbur Wright invented the airplane a century ago, they did not envision massive aerial bombardments of "shock and awe." In fact, the Ohio brothers once thought their invention would become the great deterrent to warfare. It was an idea shared by many after the inception of flight. War would become practically impossible, the brothers thought, because the scouting done by aircraft would equalize opposing nations with information on each other's movements, preventing surprise attacks.

At some point, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon will say that his "Operation Defensive Shield" is over. By then, presumably, all suspected Palestinian militants will have been rounded up, Palestinian weapons will have been confiscated, the remaining Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank will be left to rummage in the ruins of Ramallah, Nablus, Jenin, Tulkarm and elsewhere, the Palestinian fighters in Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity will have...

WASHINGTON - "And the war came," Abraham Lincoln wrote, even though "both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war ... and the other would accept war." George W. Bush may soon be called upon to make a similar statement if the fragile cease-fire between Israelis and Palestinians breaks down and leads to an expanded Israeli-Palestinian conflict that would threaten to engulf the entire Middle East. It would be far better if he were to say who is making war and who is accepting war in time to avert a war. To announce now which side America will support and which side it will condemn before Israel is left with no alternative but to forcefully respond to another act of Palestinian-sponsored terrorism is not an act of diplomatic foolhardiness; it is an act of diplomatic vision and courage.