Two former secretaries of state, James A. Baker III and Warren Christopher, have put forward a proposal to replace the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and give Congress greater standing in decisions to go to war.

Although the initiative is a result of President Bush's Iraq war adventure, the problem is an old one that is inherent in the government's structure. Congress has the power to declare war, but the president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

The War Powers Act, passed in the final years of the Vietnam War, sought to limit the president's authority to commit troops to war unilaterally. But the retired Cabinet officers, who presided over a yearlong study of the law, called it "ineffective at best and unconstitutional at worst."

Their solution is to require the president to meet with a new committee of congressional leaders and appropriate committee chairmen before launching combat that could last longer than a week, except in cases of emergency. Congress would then have a month to vote the action up or down.

The decision to enter a war that can last years is a grave matter which should require some consensus, which Congress, representing the American people, can provide. At the same time, everyone know that today's hair-trigger international dynamics and looming terrorist attacks could require almost instant action by a president.

The deception of the Bush administration leading up to the Iraq war, which included false claims of weapons of mass destruction and links to al-Qaida prior to the 2003 invasion, left the War Powers Resolution in a shambles. Mr. Bush did not seek a declaration of war from Congress, but got authorization from lawmakers to use the military to enforce United Nations weapons sanctions.

The proposal by Mr. Baker, a Republican, and Mr. Christopher, a Democrat, seeks to avoid a repetition of the debacle that preceded the Iraq war. Mr. Baker's participation is interesting in itself. He was President George H. W. Bush's secretary of state and the lead lawyer in obtaining the presidency for George W. Bush in the 2000 fight over Florida's votes.

While the changes he and Mr. Christopher propose are desirable, they are, in principle, unnecessary. Since the start of the Iraq war, Congress has been dealt out of the decision-making process largely due to its spinelessness. It could have stopped the march to war in 2002, and it could stop it now simply by cutting off funding.

With an election four months away, the Baker-Christopher plan is unlikely to go anywhere. The president, for one thing, will veto any bright ideas that focus on his mistakes, and Congress will not be courageous or show a long attention span at this point.

But the issue -- how to keep Congress involved in the decision to take America to war -- will keep coming back. Lawmakers can help their cause by showing some backbone.