The Clinton Wars: The Constitution, Congress, and War Powers (review)

Scholars of international relations, constitutional law, rhetoric, and public policy should be equally interested in Ryan C. Hendrickson's book The Clinton Wars: The Constitution, Congress, and War Powers. Using the six military interventions from the Clinton presidency—Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Osama bin Laden, Kosovo, and Iraq—as case studies, the author convincingly argues that the president's power to exercise force abroad has grown substantially. Despite the framers' original intent and congressional efforts such as the War Powers Resolution, the will of Congress to check the president's powers has diminished significantly. This legislative hands-off approach is "best explained as resulting from the influence of various factors: the domestic political environment on the occasions when force was used, the roles of key congressional leaders in each instance, and the partisan political choices that shaped the war powers interplay" (161).

Hendrickson begins with a useful discussion on the history of the war powers issue from the founding of the country; this opening establishes a context for readers, providing the background needed to examine the case studies with a thoughtful, critical eye. Understanding the current political circumstances requires knowledge of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (WPR). Hendrickson succinctly describes Congress's attempt to restrict the president's ability to use force abroad to three specific circumstances and to ensure presidential consultation with Congress before introducing troops into hostilities or potential hostilities abroad. The historical debate that surrounded becoming involved with NATO—and the assurance of then Secretary of State Dean Acheson that this involvement would not reduce Congress's power to declare war—illuminates how much control Congress has since relinquished to its presidents, as seen in cases such as Kosovo. Hendrickson also discusses the United Nations, noting how Article 43, which specifically references congressional war powers, has often been overlooked or ignored when the United States participates in UN actions abroad.

The book then proceeds into the case studies, each of which consistently demonstrates that congressional deference can be explained through the domestic political climate and political leaders' actions and motivations. One of the more interesting—and timely—chapters focuses on Osama bin Laden, a unique case in which Clinton actually consulted with Republican leadership prior to authorizing strikes. Hendrickson compellingly argues that because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Clinton could ill afford a unilateral approach in engaging troops without inviting political attack. In a mid-term election cycle, Democrats believed they could not oppose the president at a time when his character was already in question, and Republicans knew that supporting the president in this case presented little political risk.

The Osama bin Laden case was atypical, however; Iraq is a more common example of a situation in which the president failed to consult with Congress before committing troops abroad. Although the Republican minority did bring up the constitutionality of the president's actions, most Democrats rallied around the commander in chief. In most of the examples Hendrickson provides, the reader sees that members of Congress, both Democrat and Republican, had political incentives to ignore the constitutional issue at hand. Those incentives and reasons differ from case to case, but the end of almost all described is the same: congressional deference to the president.

Hendrickson concludes the book with a thoughtful set of recommendations for reversing the present trend of presidential "omnipotence" (163). He also acknowledges the thorniness of the issue by incorporating a discussion of foreseeable problems with the alternatives he proposes. One of his strongest recommendations is urging the American public to become better educated on the existence of checks and balances. More public outcry on the subject of intervention might force Congress to alter its priorities.

From the title, one might presume this work to be an indictment of former President Clinton. In some aspects, it is certainly a valid criticism of his actions and congressional inaction. If...