TW: As any good middle-schooler learns, Congress is meant to have the sole power to declare war. As anyone who has paid attention since WWII, that concept has been stretched to the breaking point (Korea a "police action", Vietnam, Iraq etc.). The constitution is ambiguous, yes the Congress has the power to declare war but the POTUS is commander-in-chief with the ability to deploy troops at least temporarily almost at will. Yet all POTUSes have been savvy enough to obtain early resolutions getting Congressional stamps of approval on their deployments.
W. Bush sought and received Congressional authorization for the Iraq debacle without a declaration of war but with a resolution that provided cover, much like the Gulf of Tonkin resolution did for LBJ in Vietnam, for a war of a duration and magnitude defined almost exclusively by the POTUS. Once Congress passes the initial resolution the POTUS has nearly limitless power as any future efforts to rescind the authority run up against the extremely powerful argument of- "how dare you vote to cut off funds to our fighting men and women?."
Unknown to me and I am sure most others, a bi-partisan commission has been working on refining the muddle. They propose a more defined process by which Congress would vote on deployments ordered by POTUS. But the process is not the challenge, the issue is once US troops are committed tremendous pressure comes to bear on any and all to support the troops. No process unless it precludes a POTUS from deploying troops without prior approval from Congress will change that dynamic. In today's world few would suggest a POTUS must wait until Congress approves before deploying troops. Hence regardless of process we rely very heavily upon the POTUS to wisely and judiciously deploy one of our most precious assets, the men and women of our armed services. Choosing your POTUS carefully is the ultimate control.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/12/deciding_to_fight.cfm
No comments:
Post a Comment