The Mythology of Quick, Clean War

[sincereheart]

The Mythology of Quick, Clean War
By Gordon Cucullu

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” ~—John Stuart Mill

Over the past few weeks, it has been quite grim to watch the Democrats—and some ill-informed, poorly disciplined Republicans—engage in the politics of betrayal. Seeing so many supposedly intelligent, dedicated, patriotic individuals engage in infantile defeatism was maddening. They are attempting to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and many of us are frustrated and upset.

Part of what drives these individuals—aside from Beltway poll watching and unchecked ambition—also troubles many Americans: our obsession with achieving the impossible. We want to have a clean, crisp, sanitary war in which we suffer few casualties. We want to achieve our desired results while minimizing our enemy’s pain. We want the unfortunate deaths of civilians—euphemistically called “collateral damage”—removed from the process completely. We wish that all deaths inflicted by internal errors—“friendly fire casualties”—could be prevented. We want a Clean War Pill to cure our foreign policy ills, and it better not come with a hangover or any unpleasant side effects. And, by the way, we want the entire thing wrapped up by next Thursday.

Even though Iraq has been a frustrating experience—especially through the eyes of the media—our progress has been relatively positive. Compared to previous wars, casualty levels in Iraq and Afghanistan are extremely low. Elections (which took years to hold in Japan and Germany) have been occurring with reassuring regularity and have included increasingly large numbers of the population. Disaffected Sunni citizens—who held all the cards during Saddam’s vicious reign—are accepting the reality of living in equality with other Iraqis. The terrorist campaign has shifted focus from American troops to Iraqi civilians and first responders, particularly the police. And many of the terrorists are foreign fighters.

So why are Americans so disconsolate about the state of affairs? The obvious answer is that we receive precious little positive news from the battlefield. We are told that casualty rates are high, even though they are not. We are told that the “insurgency” is gaining popularity among Iraqi people, while the converse is true. On the “Arab Street”—which up till now has been deafeningly silent—citizens at the massive demonstrations in Jordan chanted, “Zarqawi, burn in hell!” Inside Iraq, many civilians who had previously given tacit support to the terrorists are no longer intimidated. These days, they’re informing American and Iraqi forces.

We are told that Iraqi infrastructure is irreparably harmed, even though more schools are open, more hospitals are functioning, and more electricity is being generated now than any time during Saddam’s reign. Moreover, the economy is booming to the point that large numbers of Iraqi expatriates are returning to join in the free market bonanza. The press is finally free, and newspapers, radio, television, and Internet outlets are up and running. If Iraqis are concerned about the American presence, they fear that we will cut and run.

What can be the motivation for such distorted reporting from the battlefield? In brief, it’s the Vietnam syndrome, writ large. The reporters, commentators, and analysts who report the war are themselves fatally infected with the Vietnam disease even though most are far too young to have experienced it firsthand. They were inoculated with anti-war, anti-American ideology while in journalism school, and they receive frequent booster shots. They have been schooled that mere reporting of the news is for wimps, and that real journalists are “participatory.” They believe their role is “interpreting” news for the unwashed public. So selective screening, cherry-picked facts, and slanted interpretations are all part of their beat.

Some of the Vietnam legend is that bad wars are ugly while good wars can be just, clean, and bright—evidence our mythologizing of World War II and the generation deemed the “Greatest.” We rewrite the history of warfare to suit our flawed beliefs. We have forgotten the horrific mistakes made during WWII, the friendly fire casualties, the intentional targeting of civilians, the mass bombings, and the lingering insurgency in Germany for years after the Allied victory. We have sanitized what was in fact an extraordinarily brave group of men and women fighting a typically messy war. We ignore the past and paradoxically vilify what today’s military has done to develop a method of war-fighting that preserves civilian life and minimizes casualties.

But post-Vietnam America—even decades past—seems incapable of discarding the revisionist slanders placed upon it by the hard Left and its media accomplices. We are told by the “anti” crowd that Iraq is “another Vietnam,” and that American presence only “motivates the insurgents to greater violence.” That this is totally fatuous and historically incoherent does not penetrate. But if a genuine similarity exists between the Iraq war and Vietnam, it is that these same moral cowards forced a precipitate withdrawal of American support for our South Vietnamese ally. What followed were gruesome killing fields, concentration camps, and hundreds of thousands of hapless refugees.

Our shameful retreat left a dismal political and economic system that is still struggling to regain a modicum of the prosperity that South Vietnam one enjoyed, even during wartime. Flight from Iraq would trigger a civil war, give victory to the al-Qaeda terrorists, and energize the Islamofascist killers. They would attack America and our allies from all sides with all imaginable weapons. Is this really the outcome that serious American Democratic leaders wish? That itself is unimaginable.

By insisting on ultra “clean” wars with no losses and quick, cheap victories, and by continuing to heed the revisionists who “Vietnamize” every international move that America makes, we risk losing this fight. These internal dissidents are so obsessed with their anti-American, anti-Bush criticism that they are willing to run from a vicious enemy and betray the sacrifices of our soldiers. We must prevent them from doing that, as the consequences would be extremely dire for Iraq, the region, and America.

That is the real lesson of war: war is sometimes necessary, always messy, and never quick, crisp, and clean. We must keep things in perspective. And we as a nation must steel ourselves to the necessity of enduring difficult circumstances and persevering in order to bring about safer, better times. Those are the real lessons of warfare, and of Vietnam.

Former Special Forces lieutenant colonel Gordon Cucullu is a frequent television commentator on military matters. Posted:  November 30, 2005

[Soldier4Christ]

Amen, sister. This problem is compounded because many of the antiwar croud of the Viet Nam era are now the ones that are in government offices and in positions of teaching the younger generations from elementary schools through the universities. They are pushing their antiwar ideologies onto our nation. As they do so those that would have us killed will have their way.

This people still have not learned that:

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism - while the wolf remains of a different opinion (-W. R. Inge)."

[nChrist]

Amen Sincereheart,

Sister, it makes me sick to hear what some of our politicians say out one side of their mouth and say that they respect and support our troops out the other side of their mouth. Surely they realize that our troops do hear what they are saying eventually. Congress and the Senate has been like a big kindergarten. AND, the news media covers everything from a far left perspective. They don't report any positive or good news about what our Armed Forces are doing.

We can pray and we can vote.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Matthew 18:20 NASB  "For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst."

[sincereheart]

It is so sad to see the "body count" lists as an impersonal attack on Bush. It's amazing to me that people forget the casualties of wars before Vietnam. Yet those were the times when we thought of those serving as heroic. And the "body counts" were tremendous in WWI and II.

When all this started this go round, so many seemed to have this idea that the U.S. would go and kick some Saddam behind and be back home in a week. That wasn't realistic and looking back at previous wars would show that it wasn't the way then, either.

But you can't really compare it to Vietnam, can you? Vietnam still isn't classified as a "war".

I don't know of anyone who "likes" war. But it's naive to think that we can always avoid one. 

[Soldier4Christ]

But you can't really compare it to Vietnam, can you? Vietnam still isn't classified as a "war".

Legalistically speaking you're right, Viet Nam was not a war. However just ask anyone that was there and I am sure that you will get a diffirent story.  I was there and it sure did look like a war to me.

[sincereheart]

Legalistically speaking you're right, Viet Nam was not a war. However just ask anyone that was there and I am sure that you will get a diffirent story.  I was there and it sure did look like a war to me.

Sorry! 
I should have said that the comment was made with tongue firmly in cheek! My dad did 8 tours there and it sure looked like a war to him, too! 

I just was venting about those against this war comparing it to Vietnam! 

[Soldier4Christ]

Sorry! 
I should have said that the comment was made with tongue firmly in cheek! My dad did 8 tours there and it sure looked like a war to him, too! 

I just was venting about those against this war comparing it to Vietnam! 

That's ok sister. That's exactly what I thought you meant. I just had to claify that part for myself.

[nChrist]

Brothers and Sisters,

I honestly feel like the vast majority would understand and have the proper appreciation if the news media simply covered the good and the bad instead of them concentrating totally on the bad.

I feel like I do understand from numerous perspectives, including my son who served there. I know beyond any doubt at all that somebody paid for every single one of the freedoms that we enjoy each day. I also know that our children and our elders are safe on our soil right now because of courageous young men and women who paid for our safety. We can and should pray for them every day. We can also treat them with the dignity and respect that they deeply deserve - every time we see and anywhere we see them.

Nobody knows except GOD about the future. Who knows - maybe we will all be warriors some day just to survive, including our children and elders. That's what the terrorists of this world want, and they just might get it. If so, I think we need to put the politicians on the front line.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Psalms 107:6 NASB  Then they cried out to the LORD in their trouble; He delivered them out of their distresses.

[Shammu]

That is the real lesson of war: war is sometimes necessary, always messy, and never quick, crisp, and clean. We must keep things in perspective. And we as a nation must steel ourselves to the necessity of enduring difficult circumstances and persevering in order to bring about safer, better times. Those are the real lessons of warfare, and of Vietnam.

AMEN sister often war, is nessacery. Most of these people that are against war, no nothing of war. They are the crowd, that would give up, any rights they had.

[Rhys]

So why are Americans so disconsolate about the state of affairs?

I don't think it is just because of the negative news coverage. It is more because the American people were never consulted (through their elected representatives) about going to war to begin with. Our Founding Fathers, having experienced the unfortunate results (to the people) of generations of monarchs starting wars for foolish or personal reasons, wisely gave the power to declare war to Congress, NOT the President:

Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning
Captures on Land and Water;

The suggestion that the president should have unilateral power to make war was decisively rejected at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. As delegate Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts put it, he "never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the executive alone to make war." Instead, the Framers agreed that Congress would have the power to declare war.

It's true that the Constitution makes the president the "Commander in Chief" of the US Army and Navy. But as Alexander Hamilton noted in Federalist No. 69, this does no more than make the president the "first General" of America 's armed forces. And generals don't get to decide which countries we go to war with. http://www.cato.org/dailys/02-26-02.html

If the Constitution had been followed and obeyed, the American people would have been much more likely to support the war and remain committed to it. Instead, many if not most view it as Mr. Bush's private adventure, being carried out at the expense of the blood and treasure of the American people.

Every war since WW2 has been an unconstitutional war - and every one (with minor exceptions such as Grenada) has been a disaster. Even Korea can't be declared a success, since it is still officially not over and North Korea is still a threat.

As to the media - freedom of the press is a hallmark of a free society. It is true the press is often overwhelmingly negative, but this has always been true. There was a paper in Cal. (I believe) that dedicated itself to reporting good news - it was out of business in a short time! The present discussion is much better than at the beginning of the war, when the press appeared to be the captive propaganda arm of the military with its embedded reporters and no independent reporting from Iraq. Reporting today might be more accurate if the press could move about and report on Iraq without fear of being shot or kidnapped - but this also shows that the situation in Iraq is not as good as the government says it is.

We want to have a clean, crisp, sanitary war in which we suffer few casualties

I've read that this has much to do with demographics. This may sound callous, but when people had large families they appear to have been more willing to lose one or two sons than they are today when losing a child may mean their entire family line dies out. Also, death was more accepted when infant mortality rates were high and some children were expected to die in any case. The military also plays along with and reinforces the point of view that casualties and collateral damage are unnecessary with its showing off of "smart weapons" technology.

It is so sad to see the "body count" lists as an impersonal attack on Bush. It's amazing to me that people forget the casualties of wars before Vietnam. Yet those were the times when we thought of those serving as heroic. And the "body counts" were tremendous in WWI and II.

But then again, it is Mr. Bush's war, not the American people's war, because he short circuited the Constitution - so why shouldn't he be held responsible for the results?

We are told that Iraqi infrastructure is irreparably harmed, even though more schools are open, more hospitals are functioning, and more electricity is being generated now than any time during Saddam’s reign. Moreover, the economy is booming to the point that large numbers of Iraqi expatriates are returning to join in the free market bonanza.

Maybe, but it is worth noting that generation of electricity means nothing if it can't be delivered to the users.

Tuesday, March 14, 2006 · Last updated 12:21 p.m. PT
Electricity hits three-year low in Iraq http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107AP_Iraq_Powerless.html

Flight from Iraq would trigger a civil war, give victory to the al-Qaeda terrorists, and energize the Islamofascist killers. They would attack America and our allies from all sides with all imaginable weapons. Is this really the outcome that serious American Democratic leaders wish? That itself is unimaginable.

This I have to agree with, (except for giving victory to Al-Qaeda as the Sunnis have already turned on the foreign fighters and are hunting them down). Having gone into Iraq we have no viable option but to stay until the job is finished, otherwise the results will be to vindicate Al Qaeda's claim that America can't take casualties and if drawn into a war where they are inflicted seemingly endlessly will withdraw in defeat. This WILL "energize the Islamofascist killers" and cause us endless trouble in the future. Unfortunately, I don't think we are going to stay the course now, but will begin to withdraw troops, declaring the job finished, and blame the resulting chaos on the Iraqi government. Civil war and the splitting up of Iraq will be the inevitable result. Iraq doesn't really matter as far as we are concerned - it was never really a unified nation unless made so by a ruthless dictator - even in Bible times it was usually split between the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Chaldeans. What really matters is that the Islamists will be encouraged and terrorism against the West will increase.

I guess my main point is that there was no rush to invade Iraq. If the issue had been debated and the process followed properly and it had been decided to invade by Congress, the American people would have supported it and remained behind the effort even in difficulties. Reporting on the war, as well as the necessity of and difficulties of occupation would have been properly discussed and planned for - which they obviously were not.

When all this started this go round, so many seemed to have this idea that the U.S. would go and kick some Saddam behind and be back home in a week. That wasn't realistic and looking back at previous wars would show that it wasn't the way then, either.

"Many seemed to have this idea" includes the Bush administration, Donald Rumsfield, and all the American people they sold the idea to! Because Mr. Bush essentially acted on his own, as far as I am concerned he, not the press, holds sole responsibility for the results.

[Soldier4Christ]

Sorry Rhys, but Congress approved the Iraq war on Oct. 11, 2002 six months before the war actually started. So calling this President Bush's "private adventure" is way off in left field. The people that call this an illegal war do so for other reasons than that. If they do so based on that reason then they are completely wrong.

[Shammu]

Sorry Rhys, but Congress approved the Iraq war on Oct. 11, 2002 six months before the war actually started. So calling this President Bush's "private adventure" is way off in left field. The people that call this an illegal war do so for other reasons than that. If they do so based on that reason then they are completely wrong.

Thats all apart of the media, not presenting the facts. Yes this is a legal war, with congresses blessings.

PR as you know, the media has lied and misinformed before, and will keep on misinforming the people till they start to DEMAND the facts, not lies. There have been lawsuits, when the media has lied, and the courts have backed up the media for lies published.

[Rhys]

Sorry Rhys, but Congress approved the Iraq war on Oct. 11, 2002 six months before the war actually started. So calling this President Bush's "private adventure" is way off in left field. The people that call this an illegal war do so for other reasons than that. If they do so based on that reason then they are completely wrong.

 




The Constitution reserves the right to Congress to declare war. Show me where does it give Congress the right to authorize a war without declaring one?

Congress wouldn't even have done that if the administration had not USED THE MEDIA to whip up a patriotic fervor and also fed them and Congress false intelligence information. It was obvious to me at the time that President Bush had an absolute obsession with Iraq, had already decided to invade, and was just looking for excuses to justify it. Even his own father advised him against it! All the world's major intelligence services stated publically Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and many seemed doubtful of the WMD claim.

I well remember from Vietnam that the last resort of the government when a war becomes unpopular is to blame the media for negativity. Remember Spiro Agnew's "Nattering Nabobs of Negativity"? (Agnew of course turned out to be a liar and a crook).

In my experience the media seldom shapes public opinion, it follows and mirrors it.

Public opinion is shaped by people meeting in small groups and discussing things, whether in bars, churches, or increasingly on the internet. It is of course based somewhat on what information people receive from the media, but mostly on word of mouth and personal experience.

The longer a war goes on the more soldiers come home and talk about what is going on there, the more families lose members to casualties, the more disgruntled members of the government leak information, etc.

The proof of this is in the first Afganistan occupation - by the Soviet Union. The tightly controlled State run media certainly painted a rosy picture of how the war was going, but public opinion eventually turned against it as the truth leaked home through increasing casualties, government leaks, and through soldiers returning home and talking about it.

The media wants to make money and usually gives people the news they want to hear with the slant that is popular. Ask yourself why you never hear or read of what is going on in any other country unless it affects the US in some way? What happened in Brazil yesterday? Americans simply aren't interested, so the media doesn't report on it.

I am not in left wing politically. I voted for George Bush the first time and was proud of the way he handled 9/11 and Afganistan, (though disturbed he never asked for a declaration of war there - he could have easily gotten one from Congress but chose to ignore the Constitution). I fully support his stand on abortion and other social issues, but I parted company over Guantanamo, torture, rendition, and other total violations of the Constitution he swore to uphold. I voted Libertarian in the last election. I am right wing on social issues but tend to be left wing on economic ones.

George Bush is making Nixon's "Imperial Presidency" look like a child's game. He may be becoming the biggest threat to the Republic we have ever faced. This country has survived as a free country through a balance of powers, but he is trying to consolidate all power in the executive.

A free press is also essential to the survival of a free country, but it won't remain free if under constant threat by the government to reveal its sources. Which is - obviously - an attack on the press, not a sincere effort to protect intelligence. My proof? The government knew the media had the story on the secret wiretaps for a year, but showed no concern over who leaked the story or that the leaker might leak some more information. But as soon as the story was printed they started threatening to arrest reporters and make them reveal the source. If they were really concerned about the leak, they would have taken immediate action. The whole thing is an obvious attempt to intimidate the press.

[Soldier4Christ]

Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973

Joint Resolution

Concerning the War Powers of Congress and the President.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SHORT TITLE

SECTION 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".
PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.


CONSULTATION

SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.


REPORTING

SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--

(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;

(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or

(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--

(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;

(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and

(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

(b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad

(c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.


CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

SEC. 5. (a) Each report submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1) shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate on the same calendar day. Each report so transmitted shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate for appropriate action. If, when the report is transmitted, the Congress has adjourned sine die or has adjourned for any period in excess of three calendar days, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, if they deem it advisable (or if petitioned by at least 30 percent of the membership of their respective Houses) shall jointly request the President to convene Congress in order that it may consider the report and take appropriate action pursuant to this section.

(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.


cont'd on page two

[Soldier4Christ]

Page Two

CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR JOINT RESOLUTION OR BILL

SEC. 6. (a) Any joint resolution or bill introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and such committee shall report one such joint resolution or bill, together with its recommendations, not later than twenty-four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.

(b) Any joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(c) Such a joint resolution or bill passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out not later than fourteen calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). The joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(d) In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a joint resolution or bill passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such resolution or bill not later than four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than the expiration of such sixty-day period.
CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

SEC. 7. (a) Any concurrent resolution introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and one such concurrent resolution shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.

(b) Any concurrent resolution so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(c) Such a concurrent resolution passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days and shall thereupon become the pending business of such House and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(d) In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a concurrent resolution passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such concurrent resolution within six calendar days after the legislation is referred to the committee of conference. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than six calendar days after the conference report is filed. In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement.


INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION

SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred--

(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or

(2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution.

(b) Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to the date of enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.

(c) For purposes of this joint resolution, the term "introduction of United States Armed Forces" includes the assignment of member of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.

(d) Nothing in this joint resolution--

(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or

(2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.
SEPARABILITY CLAUSE

SEC. 9. If any provision of this joint resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the joint resolution and the application of such provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.


EFFECTIVE DATE

SEC. 10. This joint resolution shall take effect on the date of its enactment.