On The Fence

(2 of 4)
By the next day, Mitchell had acquiesced. A full-fledged debate on the Harkin-Adams resolution began in the Senate, where Massachusetts Democrat Edward Kennedy pointedly warned, "We have not seen such arrogance in a President since Watergate." The fight spread to the House, despite Speaker Tom Foley's efforts to contain it. Democrats Richard Durbin of Illinois and Charles Bennett of Florida announced that they had enlisted 51 supporters for a resolution similar to the one Harkin and Adams had introduced in the Senate. Though neither resolution would be binding, both represent a clear message to the President that he must make Congress a partner to any decision to use force.

The congressional leadership's reluctance to challenge the President reflected the fears of legislators from both parties. Many dovish lawmakers prefer to sit on the fence as long as it remains unclear whether the military option can succeed at acceptable cost. Though some may loudly question White House policy, few have ventured any on-the-record challenge. That suits the President just fine. Bush says he is willing to continue "consulting" with Capitol Hill leaders, but he has made no effort to seek outright congressional approval for his push toward war. His concern, as he explained to TIME in an interview published last week, is that anything less than an overwhelming endorsement of his policy by Congress would convince Saddam that the U.S. is divided and therefore reluctant to fight.

Many in Congress agree. "It is awfully difficult for us to do anything of substance without creating the impression of congressional and national divisiveness," says Indiana Democratic Representative Lee Hamilton. "The fact is, in an instance like this, Congress operates on the margin." The reasons for that may be more political than patriotic. If Bush opts for war -- and if Iraq is quickly dislodged from Kuwait at acceptable cost -- the President's popularity will skyrocket. A Congress that tries to thwart him now could later appear guilty of unseemly partisanship. Dovish Democrats in particular would see themselves labeled once again as wimps in the arena of global politics.

But there are dangers in silence as well. If Bush hopes to convince Saddam that the country is behind its President, no move would send a stronger signal than a congressional declaration of war. If war turns disastrous, moreover, a Congress that had done nothing to deter the President would be vulnerable to charges that it had let down the people it purports to represent. Georgia Democratic Senator Sam Nunn warns that once troops go into battle, it will be too late for Congress to be arguing the propriety of war. "The time for debate," he insists, "is before that occurs."

To a large extent, the hesitations of Congress echo the ambivalence of the American public. Most polls show that a majority of Americans support the U.S. goal of expelling Iraq from Kuwait. Yet the American people are divided over the prospect of rushing into war on the timetable set by the President. Many members of Congress returned to Washington last week reporting that letters from their constituents strongly favored giving sanctions more time to work and urged the lawmakers to get into the act.