Editorial: No blank check for war

THE ISSUE:

The president pursues an erratic, undefined policy on Syria and its patron, Russia.

THE STAKES:

Now that missiles are flying, will Congress fulfill its constitutional role?

If you're at a loss to explain President Donald Trump's strategy in Syria, you're in good company. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley doesn't seem to know what it is, either.

Ms. Haley thought she could speak for current U.S. policy in Syria when she declared Sunday that Mr. Trump would follow up Friday's air strikes with tough new sanctions against its ally, Russia, on Monday.

Then came Monday, and the White House said, no, that's not the plan.

What may merely be embarrassing for Ms. Haley should be deeply troubling for Americans and particularly their representatives in Congress who, under the Constitution, are supposed to decide whether the country goes to war.

Mr. Trump and his surrogates, including Ms. Haley, quickly sought to portray the president as a decisive commander-in-chief who acted firmly after reports that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had once again used chemical weapons in his country's seven-year-old civil war. That myth doesn't hold up, though, when the president hems and haws about pulling out of Syria one day and bombs it a few days later, or lobs more than 100 cruise missiles at a country and has no idea what to do next.

Given the gutting of the State Department and the disintegration of U.S. diplomacy on Mr. Trump's watch, it seems his approach to foreign conflicts is to attack — with insulting tweets, trade sanctions, or actual missiles. With such instability in the White House, Congress must assert itself, and inform Mr. Trump that he can't use the military for his erratic whims, especially when no immediate threat to the United States exists. Whether it's boots on the ground or bombs in the air, Congress must insist on a coherent strategy before it allows the president to wage war.

Mr. Trump may get a kick out of the attention he gets from being unpredictable, but an America that flits and flails from one strategy to another does not promote national security or global stability.

There are signs that sentiment may finally be changing in a Congress that has been shirking responsibility ever since it gave President George W. Bush overly broad authority to wage a vague war on terror after the 9/11 attacks. The Senate, at least, is talking about a better balance more in accord with the Constitution, assuring the president flexibility in addressing immediate threats while affording Congress its rightful role in setting policy.

Unfortunately, there is less optimism for such an approach in the House of Representatives, which seems all too content to keep issuing this president, like his predecessors, a blank check rather than take responsibility for national defense, or, in Mr. Trump's case, offense.

Doing nothing, however, is indeed doing something. The representatives who prefer to give Mr. Trump free rein to wage an undeclared war had better be prepared to answer for his policies — assuming, that is, any of them can even figure out what they are from one day to the next.