Kaine continues push for war vote

We refer, of course, to Kaine’s two-year quest to persuade Congress to do its constitutional duty — to vote on whether to authorize military force against the so-called Islamic State.

For some, this is a bothersome little detail. After all, we already are using military force against the jihadists who have seized a swath of territory in Syria and Iraq and proclaimed their own state. Whether the amount of military force that President Obama is bringing to bear is carefully calibrated or woefully insufficient to the task is a different question.

The fact is, since Aug. 8, 2014, we have been bombing and conducting special operations raids — more than 9,309 bombing runs, in fact, which seems a few more than a simple in-and-out strike.

Then there’s another inconvenient fact: Seventeen American service members have died as part of something that even has an official military designation as Operation Inherent Resolve.

That inherent resolve, though, does not extend to the hall of Congress, which has steadfastly declined to even debate, much less vote on, an authorization of force.

The Constitution seems rather clear on this point: “The Congress shall have power … to declare war.” So why hasn’t it?

The answer is strangely bipartisan: Democrats don’t like to be seen voting for war; Republicans don’t want to do anything that appears to be a vote in support of the detested Obama. Both sides are quite content to talk tough about fighting terrorism, but aren’t eager to cast a vote that might give them some moral ownership of how that fight is waged.

Then there’s Kaine, who since the summer of 2014, has discomfited members of both parties by trying to force a vote. He’s done so in coordination with Jeff Flake — a Republican senator from Arizona — but it’s Kaine who has been the most vocal, using every opportunity to call attention to the lack of congressional action.

On Monday, Kaine was the commencement speaker at Virginia Military Institute. If anyone was expecting the usual graduation clichés, they were sorely mistaken. Kaine delivered a serious-minded address — somberly reciting the names of the 17 Americans who have perished in Operation Inherent Resolve, and calling Congress to task for its failure to act.

He didn’t spare the Obama administration, either. He cited the recent death of a Navy SEAL in northern Iraq — and a New York Times story that looked at how the Defense Department was unsure how to categorize his death.

“The article about Charlie Keating’s death included a surreal account of the back and forth in the Administration over whether his death in a firefight was a ‘combat death,’ Kaine told VMI graduates. “Why would the Administration quibble over whether Charlie Keating’s death was, in fact, ‘a combat death?’ Is Congress AWOL when it comes to authorizing military action against ISIL? What must we do to honor our oaths to support and defend the Constitution of the United States?”

Kaine’s insistence that Congress’ vote on war is politically fascinating, for the simple reason that there is no political advantage for him. His own party would surely rather hear him bloviate about whatever the issue of the day may be, and for Democrats, that issue is not the Islamic State.

Kaine is acting like a strict constructionist on this one — yet Republicans, who otherwise rail against Obama for executive overreach, are content to look the other way when it comes to the one place where Obama is clearly operating outside the bounds of the Constitution.

At VMI, Kaine explained, once again, why congressional failure to vote on war is a grievous error that upsets America’s constitutional balance of powers: This passage is long on words, but also long on insight:

“We take this balance of powers for granted now, but it is important to remember just how radical it was at the time. Throughout human history, the initiation of war has been for the monarch, the king, the emperor, the sultan. It has been an executive function. It is still that way in much of the world. And when our Constitution was being drafted, there were those like Alexander Hamilton who wanted war to be primarily an executive responsibility. But Madison prevailed, essentially making an effort to change the course of history with the decision that war should not be initiated without a vote by the people’s elected legislature … Madison described this particular clause as the most important single element in the entire American Constitution: ‘In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature and not to the executive department.’”

This isn’t just a history lesson, Kaine warned: “Congressional inaction not only shows a lack of resolve. It also sets a dangerous precedent. We have allowed President Obama to wage an executive war of his own choosing without any Congressional permission for nearly two years. It’s not hard to imagine that a future president will use this example to also justify initiating war without the permission of Congress.”

Kaine’s VMI speech is unlikely to stiffen any spines in Congress. But imagine, if you will, a month or so hence, if he is tapped as Clinton’s running mate. There would probably be glowing talk of Kaine’s missionary work in Central America, how he can speak fluent Spanish, and all the other easy parts of his resume. Sanders supporters would look more closely at Kaine’s views on trade and income equality. But somebody’s bound to point out this: Kaine is the guy who has called out members of both parties on war and peace.

We can imagine that would make for a very interesting debate — one that Congress should have had a long time ago.