Read Making War to Keep Peace for Free Online

Union by a friendship treaty, had invaded Kuwait two years earlier, the Security Council could not have passed a resolution condemning the invasion. The Soviet Union would have called Iraq’s aggression a “liberation” that fulfilled age-old aspirations for the unity of two peoples wrested apart by colonial powers. 40 (This was Iraq’s own rationale for the invasion.) Iraq could have counted on 100 percent support from the Soviet bloc and wide support from the nonaligned nations, among which the Soviets had broad influence. Internal divisions would have neutralized the Arab bloc and the Islamic Conference, and a long procession of speakers would have declared the condemnation of the invasion to be simply another machination of imperialist and Zionist powers, and Kuwait a corrupt remnant of the colonial era.
    For decades, aggression by the Soviet Union and its allies had beendefined as liberation. For example, the Soviet invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan were described as acts of international fraternal solidarity. But that era had passed. Instead of defending Iraq as a treaty ally, Dr. Nikolay Shishlin, political adviser to the Soviet leadership, pointed out that Iraq broke its 1972 friendship treaty with the Soviet Union when it invaded Kuwait. Shishlin said, “The people regard [the invasion of Kuwait] as a crime and a criminal act.” Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev’s closest adviser, Aleksandr Yakovlev, called the invasion a violation of “a moral law.” 41
    For the first time, Soviet officials read the UN Charter as it was meant to be read, and the Soviet government joined in the series of resolutions. China, which usually avoids casting a veto alone, also joined in. An unprecedented consensus was born among the permanent members that held throughout the Gulf War.
    Securing the Support of Congress
    Some legal scholars have argued that a mandate from the UN Security Council is all the authorization required to legitimize U.S. military action. But that argument assumes that the Security Council’s decision overrides the requirement of the U.S. Constitution that Congress must declare war and tacitly transfers that authority in the U.S. government from Congress to the president, who decides how the United States will vote in the Security Council. President Bush saw his obligations differently. Just as he sought explicit approval from the Security Council for the use of force against Saddam Hussein, he also sought the support of Congress in committing U.S. troops to the conflict.
    Bush remembered the bitter debates when Lyndon Johnson failed to secure congressional support before plunging U.S. forces more deeply into the war in Vietnam. He wanted clear authorization from Congress, not a Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. UN Security Council Resolution 678, which set a deadline for Saddam’s withdrawal, was expected to help with Congress, but the Democratic leadership in both the House and the Senate—including House Speaker Tom Foley (WA), Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (ME), and Armed Services Committee chairman Sam Nunn (GA)—opposed the resolution requested by Bush.
    Most Democrats argued, along with Nunn, that rather than risking thousands of lives on a war on the other side of the globe, the United States should allow more time for the economic sanctions to produce the desired results. 42 Most Democratic leaders in the Senate argued that Saddam could not indefinitely withstand the economic pressure of the sanctions. Mitchell charged that Bush was about to make the decision “prematurely.” 43 Senator Claiborne Pell (D-RI) thought Iraq’s military strength was already being eroded. 44
    Many arguments were heard for and against granting Bush the power to send American forces into combat. Some questioned the efficacy of economic sanctions in general and of these particular sanctions against this particular adversary. Others wondered whether denying