John Spratt: “our problem is not with the idea of authorization. The President legally should seek our authorization before committing…”

“our problem is not with the idea of authorization. The President legally should seek our authorization before committing ground troops, and politically he would be well advised to get it. Our problem is with the text of this resolution, because it creates a potential legal quagmire for troops that we have deployed. It uses the word ``ground elements,'' not exactly a word of art, but instead of using ``ground troops'' or ``ground forces,'' it says ``ground elements,'' so as to include not just personnel but materiel, not just troops but equipment and weapons, as well. So the first casualty of this sweeping ban, this language in this resolution, is going to be foredeployed and prepositioned equipment. Why do we want to preposition? Because if we need M-1 tanks, if we need Bradleys in this theater, we will have to begin today prepositioning those tanks and Bradleys and the other heavy equipment, because we will not have time when the need arises. That does not mean we may need them for a ground force that will be conducting a ground war. We may need them for a multinational implementation force. If we have learned anything from Beirut to Mogadishu, it is that when we send in one of these peacekeeping forces, they had better be tough. They had better be imposing. They had better have the equipment, so that nobody dares take them on.…”