Finding appropriate ways to channel anger in the aftermath of such horrific acts is the challenge facing every American. The urge to exact quick revenge is understandable, and the House moved swiftly this week to craft a document that would authorize the president to wage what he pointedly called a war against terrorism. The echoes of history reminded members of the importance of the language they invoke, and they sought to find words that would take into account the changed battlefield of the 21st century. “All the definitions are out the door,” says Rep. Ellen Tauscher, a California Democrat. “This is not conventional war; this is not combatant to combatant.”
President Bush opened the door for a different kind of congressional action when he repeatedly characterized America’s terrorist adversaries as “evil” in his speech from the Oval Office. “The administration is to be applauded for drawing a very bright white line,” says Tauscher. “We’re on one side, and we’re asking our neighbors and allies to join us. To those who are harboring people who have done these things, then you better start to pray, because the world community is going to be with us.”
Members are feeling the heat of public anger, yet they are cautioned by events past. In the 1960s, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution gave such broad authority to President Lyndon Johnson that Congress felt compelled to restrain future presidents. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Act, making the chief executive accountable to Congress and frustrating presidents to the point where they did everything they could to avoid going to Capitol Hill and invoking the act in the first place.
Whatever words the House settles on will be passed by overwhelming majorities, and future administrations will live by them. There is a sense of urgency. Once the focus moves away from the rescue operations, the pressure will intensify for retaliation. There is a period of time Americans will grant their leaders to determine the proper course of action, but there is an expectation that something will be done. “And they don’t want this shoot-to-wound stuff anymore,” Tauscher says. “They want it done.”
Bush has an extraordinary well of support to draw from as he guides the nation’s response. Even such liberal members as California Rep. Nancy Pelosi are prepared to back military action. “And I’m the last person to advocate violence,” she says. “But retaliation when we know for sure who did this has to be decisive and very massive, and I know a lot of my peace-loving friends feel the same way.” Nations around the world appear ready to join a broad coalition, which is in marked contrast to when the Reagan administration moved against Libya in the late 1980s and had to fly around French air space. This time the French are with the administration; they know it could be the Eiffel Tower next.
Members of Congress are, like the Naval Academy students, demanding somebody’s head. The how, what, when, where and why is up to President Bush. A $20 billion emergency supplemental bill will pass Congress without objection. For the moment, the critics are silent. But they won’t be silenced for long. Next week, the Defense authorization bill will be debated in the House, and the battle will be joined. The core issue is whether to give Bush the money he wants for a missile-defense shield or to shift some of that money to “asymmetrical” threats like terrorism. Democrats will argue that the attacks on New York and Washington prove that more funding is needed for human and electronic intelligence to combat terrorism as opposed to pouring the bulk of the nation’s resources into an unproven missile-defense system to defend against a threat that doesn’t yet exist.
As we go back into the political trenches, Bush will use the attacks on American soil to further his agenda. He’ll say we need a missile-defense shield more than ever because it’s not just individual terrorists we must fear, but the rogue states who harbor them, and who might launch a nuclear missile.
Backers of missile defense are already arguing if such devastation can be caused by planes, imagine what it would be like if missiles rained down on New York. The debate is likely to be the first crack in the unity that has existed on Capitol Hill in the wake of the attacks. Congressional leaders expect a party-line vote with Republicans sticking with Bush on missile defense, the centerpiece of his defense policy, regardless of the evidence of new and more immediate threats. “This is their manhood test,” says Tauscher.
Talk of the lockbox for Social Security has faded. It seems trivial compared to the national-security concerns facing the country. But the crippling of air travel and the disruption of the normal flow of business are likely to thrust the slowing economy into a state of recession. Bush said he would not dip into Social Security reserves except in the case of war or recession. He may get both.
