MISSOURI COMMENTARY: WILL POWELL GIVE CLINTON A BOOST?

Once again we are about to face the unresolved constitutional conflict over war powers. Can the president alone put our military in harm's way or must he first be authorized to do so by Congress? Who determines whether U.S. forces are dispatched to Bosnia as part of a NATO peacekeeping mission?

The Founding Fathers were clear about their intent. The question of war -- committing our troops to any hostile mission -- was for Congress to decide. Once the determination was made, the president, as commander-in-chief, was to direct the military undertaking. James Madison was insistent that our fledgling nation not unwittingly create a second coming of George III who could, on his word alone, put soldiers at risk in far-off places.

No one seriously challenges the basic sagacity of the framers of the Constitution. As Madison wrote, "In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war and peace to the legislature, and not to the executive branch."

But some do seriously challenge whether the wisdom of the framers still has merit in the contemporary world. Can the Constitution be amended by misuse, non-use or the passage of time? Ambitious presidents and timid Congresses have, for practical purposes, turned war-making into a singular presidential function. Congress infrequently "declares war" (e.g., World War I and II), sometimes "authorizes" military action (e.g., Vietnam and The Persian Gulf) and occasionally lets other bodies decide for us (e.g., Korean War: U.N. Security Council voted to send troops).

In recent times, President George Bush asked Congress for authority to send our troops to the Persian Gulf, but announced in advance that if Congress denied him such authority, he would send the forces on his own. Congress voted the necessary authority and a direct confrontation between the executive and legislative branches was averted.

Now we have the question of sending American troops to Bosnia. Secretary of Defense William Perry stated that "it is not only a possibility, but likely" that paramilitary groups would target U.S. forces in the Balkans. This is not a sudden event where the White House must execute an immediate, timely response. Like the Persian Gulf undertaking, this is a situation when the president has ample time to seek congressional approval and, if he believes in the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, to be bound by the legislators' decision.

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., has pressed the president on this point and received the following response. "While maintaining the constitutional authorities of the presidency, I would welcome, encourage and, at the appropriate time, request an expression of support by Congress promptly after a peace agreement is reached." The response does not obligate the president to be bound by the decision of Congress. Just as Bush indicated he would proceed in the face of a congressional turndown, President Bill Clinton seems to suggest he would do the same.

The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was a clear case of aggression. The risk to the world oil supplies in the Persian Gulf was a danger the American public could appreciate. The necessity to participate in peacekeeping in Bosnia is not so clear cut.

Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga., for one thinks the president would be taking a "high risk" if he were to act in face of an adverse congressional vote. In addition to the deep dispute over the wisdom of sending American forces to Bosnia, he would be risking a grave constitutional confrontation. If the president can't convince the Senate and House, how can he persuade the American people?

One person could dramatically alter the equation: Colin Powell, rumored ready to announce his candidacy for president next month. Nothing would demonstrate more courageous leadership than for the nation's most respected military expert to put his stamp of approval on the necessity for the U.S. to participate in this NATO endeavor. As part of the Bush administration and the early months of the Clinton administration, Powell was very cautious about any military involvement in Bosnia. He saw only staggering downside risks.

But peacekeeping as part of a NATO force may well be, in his eyes, another matter. Powell is a staunch believer in NATO and should realize that NATO's future would be in jeopardy if it can't act to keep the peace in Europe with the U.S. as a member.

The crunch decision on peacekeeping troops in Bosnia is some weeks away. Congress has both the power to authorize and the power to assent to support a mission in Bosnia. Clinton has the burden of persuasion. A boost from Powell could help shape the debate.

~Tom Eagleton of St. Louis is a former U.S. senator from Missouri.