Especially Now, Americans Should Reflect on Memorial Day

It’s more than mattress sales and picnics.

Like so many other American holidays with noble purposes underpinned by important lessons, Memorial Day has become just another three-day weekend. The day should entail more than shopping and cookouts. Especially now, somber reflection about those who gave their lives in battle could provoke much-needed debate about the ease with which a president can take us to war unilaterally with no debate, no congressional vote, and no coherent explanation of his aims.

Memorial Day was not always another generic holiday. “Originally called Decoration Day, from the early tradition of decorating graves with flowers, wreaths and flags, Memorial Day is a day for remembrance of those who have died in service to our country,” PBS explained. “It was first widely observed on May 30, 1868, to commemorate the sacrifices of Civil War soldiers, by proclamation of Gen. John A. Logan of the Grand Army of the Republic, an organization of former Union sailors and soldiers.” The tradition of decorating graves of our military dead continues to the present. Arlington and other federal cemeteries, marked by headstones adorned with flags or wreaths, remain islands of solemnity in a country not given to self-reflection.

A soldier assigned to the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment, known as “The Old Guard,” helps place U.S. flags at every gravesite in Arlington National Cemetery, Va., on May 21. (Department of Defense photo)

But Memorial Day is too important to be confined to the grounds of military cemeteries. We could use more venues, events, and traditions that encourage Americans to take time to appreciate the cost of war and the sacrifices of brave men and women who died fighting them. As we apparently edge toward a flimsy deal to end an unnecessary, illegal, unilateral war, Americans should consider how the Constitution’s granting of authority to Congress to declare war has been virtually ignored, enabling an unhinged president to launch a war of choice without properly understanding the risks, without public debate, and without congressional consultation.

Every other president has recognized that war must be the last resort after exercising all avenues and should be undertaken only for vital national interests. But not Trump. He launched a war against Iran that cost the lives of 13 Americans and wounded hundreds of others, killed thousands of civilians throughout the region, burned through billions of dollars, reduced Tehran and Beirut to rubble (and left residents in dire conditions), and saddled already struggling Americans with higher gas prices and an inflation surge. And for what?

We have failed to achieve Trump’s goals of eliminating Iran’s nuclear ambitions, according to news reports about negotiations closing in on a final deal. An agreement to talk about a deal that might suspend enrichment for some time is weak tea. (A deal akin to the JCPOA would be the best possible outcome, but it may be unattainable at this point). We did not permanently destroy Iran’s missile capacity or shrink its footprint in the region. To the contrary, Iran comes out with more leverage than it has ever had and the potential to reassert control of the Strait of Hormuz. (And if reports are accurate, Trump is prepared to release $25 billion in frozen Iranian assets, $23.3 billion more than released in conjunction with the JCPOA. Republicans excoriated President Barack Obama, claiming he was funding Iran’s nefarious activities.)

As historian Bob Kagan explained at a recent Brookings forum, the war is “pretty much a disaster” and has resulted in a “significant diminishing of American influence in the region, the enhancement obviously of Iran’s influence, and also Iran’s good allies who are China and Russia.” Had the Constitution as written been followed, there would have been ample time to flag the risks, rally public opinion, and force Trump to explain how he would avoid predictable calamities (e.g. closing of the Strait of Hormuz).

Only after the bombs stopped falling did Congress finally push back on Trump’s disastrous war. (Last week, the Senate voted to advance the War Powers Act; the war powers resolution then had to be pulled from the House floor to avoid another humiliating defeat for Trump.) The Framers would be shocked, no doubt, at the inversion of power they carefully crafted to prevent executive abuse.

Some serious commemoration to honor of our war dead would serve as a timely reminder that:

1. War should be a last resort; never undertaken lightly;

2. Executive power has grown in dangerous and unconstitutional ways; and

3. We have the power to correct the unconstitutional inflation of executive power that can easily result in disasters like the Iran War.

As to the latter, we could use a long overdue debate about the War Powers Act, which has become essentially useless. If Democrats win back the majority in one or both houses, they must work on revising the War Powers Act to provide real restraint on presidents and reassert Congress’s sole authority power to declare war.

Fortunately, Democrats do not need to start from scratch in considering War Powers Act reforms. Senators Chris Murphy (D-CT), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced a well-crafted bill in 2021 to address several serious infirmities with the current statute. As Just Security explained at the time, the bill would have tightened up the definition of hostilities (which triggers the consultation obligations and starts the clock for Congress to halt military engagement) to include “any situation involving any use of lethal or potentially lethal force by or against United States forces.” It also would have shortened the 60-day time limit for the president to engage troops without congressional consent to 20 days.

Most critically, the bill would have enacted “an automatic funds cut-off” if Congress did not vote to continue military action. If Congress does nothing, military action would halt. Linked to the power of the purse, such a mechanism would “not require a vote, let alone a supermajority in both houses [to overcome a presidential veto], to take effect.” That’s a bill worth pulling out of the filing cabinet and reintroducing.

In sum, Americans should find time today to ponder the enormous sacrifice of our armed forces over 250 years and the dangerous expansion of presidential power that makes it far too easy for a president to take us to war on an ill-conceived whim.

I can think of no better way to honor our military men and women — living and dead — than to make it as hard as possible for a president to launch a harebrained war without the buy-in of voters and Congress.

---