We are complicit in the decomposition of the United States.
A nation gets the government it deserves.
The United States we knew is dead.
1
Since Trump's election, I've been expressing my belief that Trump intends to seek re-election by starting a war that will run through to election day, allowing him to run as a "war president". I think this was a strategy developed by Karl Rove which proved to be a decisive factor in George W. Bush's decision to allow the Neo-cons to go ahead and invade Iraq.
It's just a theory, but one that I believe is compelling.
My first thought was that Trump would start his war sometime in late 2019 - the can't win this optional war too quickly, like Bush Snr - it has to still have boots on the ground on election day. My concern now is that Trump will try to get away with using this strategy twice, first around October this year, and then again (or still) in 2020.
The best optional war has always been obvious - provoke Iran into actually fighting back. It is now becoming clear that this thought is not lost on other observers. The blatant Israeli moves towards open, direct warfare with Iran is surely the first move in Netanyahu's plan to push Trump into fighting a war with Iran on Israel's behalf.
Can't fight them in Syria, because of the kompromat in Putin's pocket, so it's going to be in northern Iraq - maybe from the Kurdish free state, using lots of Kurdish militia and getting them killed on the American payroll to keep Erdogan happy. It's a prediction made mostly in the hope it never comes true and I'm proven to be wrong. But if I'm right, don't say nobody ever predicted it!
1
It makes no difference if a congressional bill framing the use of force is vague. The Constitution is pretty specific and is ignored. President Eisenhower was very specific about the threat the abuse of military power presents, and he has been ignored.
As long as Congress is unwilling to assert its constitutional authority to ensure America's military is not the tool of presidents that it is for dictators, monarchies and other foreign authoritarian governments, the military and its policies will remain under the control of the executive and the military-industrial complex, and its outcomes a source of abuse, cost, anguish and failure, as it has been so often in the past after WWII.
The Founders feared excessive power in the executive and intended that no president should be able to use the military as King George used England's against them, and that in a government of, by and for the people, that the decision to use the terrible power of the military should be sourced only to the representatives of the people, in Congress, except in the sole case of responding to defend against an ongoing or immediately impending attack. The task of the president is to make the case to Congress for the desired authorities, never to act on his or her own initiatives or interpretations.
The congressional cowardice to accept the responsibility and consequences of its constitutional obligations remains a characteristic, costly and ever-deepening, debilitating failure of our government.
April 25, 2018
We America and all of the modern nations are under threat by the Islamic warriors with our without direct funding of any and or all nations including the wealthy Muslim states. In fact every and all are threaten the world is the targets for wild suicidal inclusive death rages and hysteria under a delusional banners of various tribes and / or pseudo religious funding allowances.
America’s efforts are much about silent tolerances for its blank check to go after the emerging camps of terror for training and drug sales to everywhere.
Congress yes is passive aggressive and yes the elite Journalism, like herewith are taking to notice and giving public proper inspection of these terror events for proper accountability and rightly so. But as terror is in shadows so it is that the parity for nations to as well exercise its dark powers and all fronts from surveillances and or direct forces on the ground as in Syria, Afghanistan and on the ready to move as needed that as well give appearance to the world wider coverage via all media’s – These events are going to be with the world for many, many years ahead efforts to solve the Muslim terrorism is by divine authority that is non rational in its human intervention and seemingly the designs of writ. Prayer
jja Manhattan, N.Y.
1
When war hysteria is being created (as in now with Russia ) the media, plain folks and the Senate go with the flow : only 2 senators voted against the Vietnam war !!)
War is good for the economy : invest your son .
2
Here is a thought to chew on. All the wars fought by, and within, our country have been started and fueled by "white men" and no other ethnic group or gender. Regardless of what people thought of Hillary Clinton, you have to weigh that a woman will be less likely to send another woman's sons or daughters into war.
In simple terms there is less of the "macho" - maybe none at all in women when compared to men.
All well and good, but congress is incapable of acting. Reminds me of Mr. Scott' comment to Captain Kirk: "If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon!"
Meantime, a modern war of vast devastation can be over in hours, far too quickly to review by committee months later.
The only thing of import that happens quickly in DC is a change of mind by the CIC POTUS, followed by denial.
1
If only Obama had enforced his red line, and not given a billion in cash to Iran.
1
Try sticking to the facts -- Why make it sound like the cash Obama returned to Iran was a gift when it was their own previously frozen own assets?
4
Congress bottomed-out after they ignored President Obama's modest request (31 August 2013) to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of chemical or biological weapons “within, to or from Syria” and to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.”
Fast forward. When Tillerson announced that American troops would stay in Syria beyond an ISIS defeat, Cory A. Booker and Oona A. Hathaway wrote "Congress must tell the president he cannot engage our troops in an illegal war in Syria."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/opinion/syria-tillerson-constitution-...
For either party’s administration, the Editorial Board promotes: "The Senate Foreign Relations Committee needs to hold hearings to examine publicly.." how to modify measures and check overreach.
It's all sage advice; and with John Bolton close to the gears of war, it's urgent advice.
Hopefully, every officeholder already recognizes the complicity of "tacit approval". When the electorate finally demands that candidates proactively explain their convictions, THEN we may see a War Powers defense continuum from our Congress as our founders prescribed.
This Bill should be called "The More Time Off For Congress Bill". Like the worst parts of the Patriot Act, which were retroactively enacted by Congress, to fuel an expanded MIC and satisfy extreme paranoia of "the everything is a conspiracy theory" of the lunatic fringe far right, which still holds power in Congress and the Presidency, this Bill would further abrogate the war power rights of Congress, both those in the Constitution and the 1973 Act.
Small Brave New World skirmishes against terrorists, both real and suspected, that go on forever are major wars, and the War Powers Act should apply. The motivation of these actions is to prevent expanded hostilities, secure oil, and continue a Pax Americana authority throughout the world. If the latter allows human rights violations (torture, the killing of non-combatants) and a lack of diversity in the sharing of this burden, then it will be questioned and undermined by other nations, i.e. the failures of the present administration are being noticed around the world.
Mr. Obama continued the engagement policies of the Bush administration, trying to use military advantage to put out fires, while oil independence was seen as a way to lessen the need for future military action. Action on GW/CC will further lessen the likelihood of being drawn into Mideast wars--there is a huge military component to fossil fuel's worldwide dominance.
Our present adult day care center Congressmen should just do their job under existing law.
Rome didn't formalized the office of Emperor until the reforms of Diocletian (i.e. after the Principate).
What Augusuts did was to have, essentially, two judicial powers: Maius Imperium -- the power of holding imperium at all provinces plus Italy and Rome itself all the time, regardless of where he was -- and, the most important and inovative, the Tribunicia Potestas -- the power of the Tribune of the Plebs.
The same way, the USA has an informal emperor. Before the WWs, the office of POTUS was not the most powerful and important one of the USA. Power laid mainly with the Congress, by far more powerful. Even the sanctified Abraham Linconln was afraid of being impeached during the Civil War and calculated carefully his decisions so not to commit any crime of responsibility.
But that changed after WWII, and, as the article mentions, the POTUS now effectively has the power to wage wars alone -- like a Roman Emperor or, in modern terminology, a Global Cop.
1
Unfortunately, putting the decision of perpetrating war on another country more firmly in the hands of Congress, is to simply put it into the hands of corporate lobbyists who, to large degree, determine individual congressional actions by controlling their campaign purse strings, and other perks from K Street. With the ruling on Citizens United, the power of the Military Industrial Cesspool to direct Congress to war is unparalleled. Until we deal with this debacle, Congress will naturally do the bidding of war profiteers before it looks out for its own constituency.
Make it mandatory for the sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, nieces, nephews, and stepchildren of every member of Congress to serve in the United States Armed Forces, active duty. I guarantee if members of Congress had their loved ones on the front lines in harm's way they would do their jobs properly.
The biggest problem is that we do not concretely distinguish between "police action" and "war.." And the distinction is enormous.
Unlike police actions - wars end. If we are fighting an actual war on terrorism who then signs the peace treaty at end.
If the President cannot point to anyone in ISIS, the Taliban, the Haqqani Network, Al-Qaida etc. who has the absolute authority to act as signatory to a cessation of hostilities (a peace treaty) – then we are talking about a police action and not a war. And if we are not talking about a war - then the President has no claim to war powers and thus any perceived authority under the War Powers Act.
I feel at a minimum Congress must require the President to answer satisfactorily this one-question litmus test.
2
The Second Amendment says that a well regulated militia is necessary for defense. The preamble to the Constitution says the government should provide for the national defense.The next time someone starts talking about the second clause of the Second Amendment, ask them about the first clause.
The Constitution does not authorize a standing army, much less an aggressive military that is always at war and has troops in over a hundred countries. The founding fathers made clear that would be a mistake.
There is a difference between offense and defense, and America continually crosses that line. Making lame excuses why having troops in Africa is defense is not acceptable.
The propaganda about protecting American "interests" is really about protecting the interests of global corporations and global billionaires.
Most Americans want defense not offense. Both parties are ignoring what the People want to give global corporations easy profits from perpetual war.
We could more easily defend our country of we weren't over extended, making enemies around the world.
Peace is the answer.
4
America is not fighting war in the manner of old. It is, instead, fighting a plethora of police actions in all corners of the globe and in many places where most Americans would not believe our soldiers have been sent.
Wars of old can yet be won, but only if one admits to the needed level of brutality and lack of morality to meet that end.
Police actions, on the other hand, whereby soldiers are greatly hindered in their specialist abilities and rules of engagement, can never be won outright on the field in foreign lands. Neither can they be won by aligning friends or subtle enemies against other more feared enemies. Police actions can only be won by talking.
A guerrilla campaign that is sustaining itself, either in the field or on western streets, is, by its very nature, one that is winning. And also a campaign that is bleeding the blood and silver of their enemies, drip by drip, until losing the will needed to persist in accepting the loss.
1
Nobody wins in war. Nobody.
WE have allowed our lawmakers to give Presidents too much power and now that we have a democray-hating-destroying, inherited wealth ego maniac residing in OUR white house we see how remiss WE have been.
PBS has a series called "Civilization" and I watched the one about war last night. The contention is that war is good and necessary for "civilization" to move forward. I imagine all those killed/wounded/dislocated in wars - both military employees, civilians and their loved ones - would disagree.
HIStory is one of war-death-destruction. HIStory leaves out over one-half the population - women. Women who love their children, fathers, brothers, uncles, friends and don't want to see them killed or maimed to prop up some would-be power monger like The Con Don.
True civilization is one where people help and support each other and help create better lives for everyone.
War is uncivilized. Human beings are not animals because we have the ability to think things through. WE must stop acting like animals.
4
I read last week that 63 cents of every tax dollar goes to the military complex. That is ludicrous. We "can't afford" to provide affordable health care to all American citizens because we have to spend the money to kill other human beings?
What is wrong with this picture?
WE THE PEOPLE are the only ones who can/will stop it and NOW is the time.
5
Without even bringing up the subject, the Editors have laid out an argument for, at a minimum, universal service and a return to peacetime conscription. We have come to this pass because too many Americans have never, and will never, serve their fellow citizens as a public servant. Not a square inch of their skin is in the game of patriotic duty.
There once was a time when even the wealthy and well-connected were called and served. Believe it or not, there was a time when the first thought that went through the minds of those of means was not, "I've got to get a deferment." They volunteered. Service was a badge of honor, not an interruption of playboy privilege.
The dearth of "veterans" --be they military, Peace Corps, Americorps or any form of unselfish service to America-- now sitting in the House, the Senate, and the Oval Office is the reason America finds its military in constant conflict. There is little to no institutional memory among them as to what war does to the bodies and minds of those sent to fight, not to mention its effect on their families. The correlation between lack of veteran experience and the willingness to let someone else do the dirty work (or, more precisely, order the dirty work be done) is not coincidental; it is causal.
It's been hundreds of years since the 1% led troops into battle.
The draft will not make them fight. They think the Military is there to make then rich, not threaten the lives of their children. They will always be able to find exceptions.
A draft will just make it easier to send more children to die.
All wars will be for actual defense when all Americans say, ok Mr. President, get on your horse, pull your sword, and charge into the enemy, THEN we will follow.
1
the world is s dangerous place, full of ugly people with evil intentions.
our response is usualy to try to just kill them.
now, we are largely in the vice grip of people who look forward to a brighter future... and people who hope to return to a more perfect, idealized past.
military adventures don't deem able to do anything about the schism. our nation was organized for a common degense against other nations, or their minions (Hessians, Indians) who followed orders emanating from a nation state.
we find ourselves with countless enemies and opponents, but relatively few of them are actially countries where there is a possibility of military success or peace settlement.
the rest is chaos,and you can't overwhelm chaos by shooting at it.
however, you can make a lot of money by shooting, and the more you do it, and the longer it's protracted, the more money there is to be made.
far, far from providing for the national defense against George III or other Western potentates.
1
Most presidents would have a concern or two about the human lives that might be lost in a war. Occasionally though there comes along someone who has very little regard for human life. Someone who would without giving it a second thought would ruin the lives of 800,000 young people for no reason other than the fact that he doesn't like Hispanics. Or who would happily go to war and risk the lives of Americans and others simply because he wants to prove to the North Koreans or the Iranians or anyone else in the woirld that he really is well endowed and one of the most magnificent human beings that ever walked the earth. All foolishness aside though, the man really and truly does need a war. Badly. It's the only thing that can save him and believe me, one way or another he will find a way to start one with someone so he can gain total control. Go back and look at his videos, like the one where he states he's the only one who can solve all our problems, or the one where he says we shouldn't be surprised if we see an increase in the presence of the military in our cities and towns and more military aircraft in the air, and it goes on and on.
1
I believe that it will be impossible for Congress to effectively legislate in this area. There are simply too many variables. However, Congress does control the purse and can restrict the Executives ability to spend funds on select military operations.
1
I’m 61 years old and we have been at war in one form or fashion my entire life. I expect to see a large escalation of some sort this summer in a lead up to the midterms. I’m retired from the military and really don’t want this to happen but if history is a guide I think it’s inevitable
3
Unless the United States is under attack, the president ought to come to Congress before putting Americans in harm's way. Then, We the People will hold our representatives in Congress accountable every two years. This is the way the Founders planned it.
1
Presidents should NOT go to war, if other options are available, and they are. Rescind the War Powers Act, and let Congress decide. It is unacceptable for a sociopath, and pathological liar to declare war on ANYONE. WE have not been attacked, nor have any of our allies. NO WAR!
3
Trump repeated his threats against Iran yet again, and even more provocatively than before. His following statement was illogical and, in his own words, 'insane':
"If Iran threatens us in any way, they will pay a price like few countries have ever paid."
Does he mean another Hiroshima? Nagasaki?
And since when has Iran ever threatened the U.S.A. other than in the flowery phrases of the 1978 evolution?
As for Iran's alleged threats against Israel, these have been repeatedly and disingenuously mistranslated from ".... the Zionist regime will disappear from the pages of time ..." to ".... we will destroy Israel", without provision of accurate translation or context. (The press cynically fails to mention the truly sickening pictures of Israeli children painting bombs with the words "from Israel with love"):
http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com.es/2006/07/israeli-children-si...
So which nation is the warmonger? And which one is defending itself against other nations' histories of barbarity in the Middle East?
It seems too much to hope cooler heads prevail, especially with an uncontrollable hothead bin the White House.
For our current batch of "heros" who are willing to trade their life, some body parts or sanity for a pittance, the solution is very simple, either congress (who has no skin in the game) authorities the action or war, or the heros say "I'm not going until you do authorize the 'cause' and also start a draft. I refuse to be your hired killer." Or as our 'tweety bird' president said to one war widow about her deceased hero, "He knew what he was getting into". Which is more than those who voted for the 'great tweety' can say. Face it, humans are the most dangerous species on this planet.
1
Congress doesn't want to be more involved in decisions like these. They're too scared of responsibility, and want to offload all the blame to the president. After all, just look at how often the Iraq War vote has come back to bite the members of Congress who made the poor decision of voting for it.
Congress has no capability to act. Extreme levels of polarization turn everything to the poles leaving no middle ground, no ability to compromise, and no negotiation since compromise is impossible.
That Congressional spineless attitude leaves us with an essential dictatorship when it comes to making war. A President on his own whim can send soldiers off to battle and death, and physical or psychological mutilation.
The Constitution didn't envision this. We have an electorate that doesn't care (fewer than 25% of us know that there are three branches of government or which branch was given war making powers by the Constitution) and their representatives in Congress represent that attitude. No attitude at all.
1
Our representatives should be required to declare war from Arlington Cemetery, acknowledging that the reason for sending our troops abroad is worth the tremendous sacrifice.
1
I'd suggest that at you want this to work, you need Congress that isn't beholden to the wealthy and the corporate and the right-wing and the religiously fanatic, and that will stand up for more than its re-election.
1
Most people who have been keeping watch on this aggressive and mercurial president and his chronically compliant administration knew it would only be a short matter of time before he succeeded in dragging this country into some kind of a war -- if only to shore up his popularity among his gung-ho base.
It's bad enough that Donald Tump tends to act impulsively and unilaterally while listening to no one, but when one factors in the nuclear codes the situation becomes very serious... very quickly.
Until now, Congress has been content to do nothing besides look the other way before nodding in agreement, but if the conflicts in Syria, Africa, or anywhere else in the world continue to escalate, they will have to do more than they have already to reign in a president who has never been in the armed forces and has no idea of what military operations involve.
Even though it is highly doubtful he will listen to them.
1
Interesting situation, though very simple in principle. Our Constitution says that only Congress can issue a declaration of war. Over about 250 years, this has been done just a few times. In today's world, our leaders seem to think we need to use our military force in all kinds of situations, and they do this with impunity for the simplest of reasons: we didn't formally declare war. It's another example of the Constitution showing its age. In 1789, war had a definite meaning, one nation-state against another. We haven't felt the need to do this since 1941, and yet many thousands of our soldiers, and many times that number of the soldiers of other countries and civilians, have died as we carried out all kinds of military actions that somehow weren't "war." So what's it to be: Congress must authorize every military action, or the President has free reign to use our military however he wants from day to day?
The whole idea of war has changed so much since the founding of our country. Even the word invasion has been modified from an assault on our mainland soil to just an affront on our desire to be wherever we want to be on the globe. Definitely, there is a need to have a vigorous debate on the projection and use of our military in our present and future foreign relations. There has never been a military as active as ours in history. What are we accomplishing?
1
I would like to see discussions such as this take into account the many instances of use of force for over 100 years against Native Americans as the U.S. expanded westward? Were these all approved by Congress or were they at the President's discretion? If at the President's discretion we are not getting the full story on how Congress has ceded the power to go to war over our country's history.
Exactly, our "defense" expenditures are not made to "defend" the country, but to be the world's bully. One always has to question cause and effect. If one has a thing, is one not motivated to use the thing ? If one has a basketball, is one not motivated to go out and shoot baskets ? Reversing cause and effect, if one wants to shoot baskets, but doesn't have a basketball, one has to go to the trouble of buying, one; ah, too much trouble, forget it. If one has a gun/military, is one not motivated to find excuses to use the gun/military ?
The reality is that the Arms Industry needs perpetual war for continual wind-fall profits. That's why the US is always involved in a war somewhere in the world, even though there is no threat to the US.
1
The military is a huge socialist welfare program. I got to see it from the inside for four years.
1
Nobody in congress wants to declare war because it would make them very unpopular! They don't want to take ANY responsibility for decisions like these so they will certainly give free reign to anyone foolish enough to want the job as POTUS. Our representatives would have to explain their decisions face to face to their constituents and what representative wants to do that?
1
Since Presidents per se never go to war, perhaps a more accurate headline would be "When Presidents Send Citizens to War"
1
Congress is too busy taking bribes and gerrymandering. Don't hold your breath.
1
Dereliction of duty by a congress, afraid to make decisions 're' authorizing the Executive to start a war, allowing a runaway president to get away with 'murder'.
From Leo Tolstoy:
Only during a period of war does it become obvious how millions of people can be manipulated. People, millions of people, are filled with pride while doing things which those same people actually consider stupid, evil, dangerous, painful, and criminal, and they strongly criticize these things--but continue doing them.
You will never read War and Peace, Mr. President. Tolstoy considered war the greatest sin. He was against killing animals of any kind for human pleasure. Don't KILL! Don't go to WAR!
1
The Times has supported every military misadventure during this century, so the editorial is perplexing. The Times even encouraged the recent airstrike on Syria, which violated international law.
The Times seems to be more concerned over constitutionality than the US engaging in unnecessary and ill-advised wars.
In the 2020 presidential campaign, if Trump is behind in the polls, he's likely to start a popularity-boosting war. It will be interesting whether the Times "rallies 'round the flag" or resists.
1
To The Editorial Board: This conversation should continue
in a Round Table Discussion....so take your thesis to PBS and
let's talk through the reasons for allowing ...Presidents to
authorize war...because at this time we are taking a chance
that a President j( especially Donald Trump who is mentally unfit
to authorize military action and has done so).. and .any future President due to precedents set, could act impulsively and unilaterally ...and cause endless devastating conflicts globally.
So...let's see that this discussion is taken to a Forum...such
as the Doha Debate Forum...to thrash out the pros and cons
of an Executive Branch order to attack without Congressional
approval....What do our allies think about our recent history
of our Executive in the oval office calling for military action without Congressional approval; what do the French think;
the British think...etcetera....so there needs to be a world
forum for discussion...and I believe this will hold our current
Presdient in check....approbation does matter.
3
"Today, American troops are fighting extremist groups in at least 14 countries ... "
Er, what 14 countries?
1. Iraq
2. Afghanistan
3. Syria
4. Yemen
5. ?
There is a vast difference between conducting a few limited airstrikes, on the one hand, and conducting an entire war to topple a government or subdue a country, on the other. The prior is more consistent with a president's authority as commander-in-chief. The latter is a usurpation of congressional authority to declare war. We have had two full-fledged wars without any type of congressional approval during the past 25 years. Bill Clinton conducted a war to bring Serbia to its knees so that it would surrender its sovereign territory in Kosovo. Barack Obama conducted a war to topple the government of Libya. Both did so without authorization from Congress (or even from the UN)--in sharp contrast to both of the Presidents Bush, who received authorizations for their wars in Panama, Afghanistan, and against Iraq, twice. It is Democratic presidents who have conducted illegal, unauthorized wars. Yet, the Times is more concerned with a few airstrikes against a monstrous regime carrying out a bloodbath against its own people and flouting international norms. When it comes to a Republican president the Times is willing to strain for a gnat, but for Democratic presidents, the Times is willing to excuse elephantine offenses.
2
Most of our presidents of the modern era do not have their children serving in the military. So they never feel the pangs that our parents feel when they send their sons and daughters to the war.
By not feeling the anxieties that we feel as parents when our brave men and women go to perpetual wars which many a times lead them to their deaths, our leaders, mainly Trump feels no pain in declaring wars not for national security. But as means to pocket billions of dollars from M.I.C.
For that reason I wish our countrymen had listened to the preaching by president Ike who was wise enough to know what's going to happen in America once he was gone from power.
Our great if not the greatest five-star general cum president Dwight D. Eisenhower, who honed his skills under the great World War II General MacArthur who gave us victory against the Japanese in the Pacific in 1945, had courage enough to warn us with his premonition saying this, " we must guard against.......the military-industrial complex."
We can clearly see how foresighted president Ike was when we look around and see how many of our later presidents since Kennedy's inauguration day on January 17,1961 fell under the influence of M.I.C. who in reality controls our country's foreign policy.
John Kennedy probably gave his life because he didn't acquiesce to the demands of M.I.C. when he refused to expand the war in Vietnam.
Now Trump is ready to start a war with Iran or Kim because of his love for money. Not for America.
3
IHJM, while you seem to have a bit of a problem IMHO with the Eisenhower vs. MacArthur relationship --- who my dad, serving in the Pacific theater in the Second World War of Empires, called "Dug-out Doug" (as most combat infantry officers called him) --- was surely "Imperial", as William Manchester documented in "American Caesar".
However, your views on America not being well served by those who either naively allowed the cancer of disguised Empire to metastasize (the deceitfully installed Truman, after Henry Wallace was 'removed' as VP before FDR's surely coming death), as well as other various and cooperative faux-Emperor role-playing presidents were installed from 1964 on via the miracle of many cycles of "least worst voting", appropriately shared between both Vichy Parties, with such probity and caution as to avoid any real "American Caesar", now ending in this faux-Emperor Trump.
2
BTW, here's how much Eisenhower admired MacArthur as a General, Proconsul, and potential "American Caesar"
https://www.nps.gov/features/eise/jrranger/5accomp4X.htm
BTW2, the confrontation between the resurgent post-FDR business/political empire-picked haberdasher-President, Truman, and the brilliant but pompous "American Caesar" in terms of whose plane lands first in Hawaii was classic one-ups-manship extraordinaire.
2
I find it easier to ignore events which kill thousands of people, that occur thousands of miles away, than I do an event where a person in my town is killed by some kind of mishap. So why should Congress go out of its way to put curbs on the president ? Congress is composed of people just like me, people who find it easier to do nothing than to do something.
At the very least, our many little "warlets" (undeclared military actions) ought not be handed off from President to President. Bush to Obama, Obama to Trump - like a football, or a free for all. Congress should approve, or not, each time a warlet must transition between presidents. If congress fails to act affirmatively then permission to meddle overseas lapses within 30 days of the election. The specific warlet thus ignored by the war declaring body ends on the following January 19 at midnight.
20
Good idea, but it does not go far enough. In my opinion, any time the President sends troops into a combat (or 'advisory and support' of combat operations) situation, the clock starts. If Congress does not vote a declaration of war within 30 days, those troops must all come out and no troops can be sent back for at least 90 days.
If we are not at war, our troops should not be being shot and killed. It is as simple as that, in my opinion.
4
This topic strikes a very raw nerve with the less than one percent of the population sent repeatedly to Iraq and Afghanistan. No one person should have the power to send other people's kids into wars that do not pose an existential threat to our nation.
1
The "forever war" part is the problem. The Kaine-Corker proposal might not be the best solution but there's still an unaddressed dilemma dating back to the W. Bush era. We can't stop fighting the Bush wars. Obama tried and the conflict only expanded into new territories. There's no winning and there's no ending what Bush started. We are nationally committed to a constitutional disaster.
The matter really isn't a partisan issue either. Democrats went marching off to war just the same as Republicans. The public sentiment following 9-11 allowed Bush and company to lay a false claim before Congress. The self-righteous war, the defensive argument. Congress took the bait hook, line, and sinker. That's part of the reason Obama was elected if you recall.
What we've witnessed in the intervening years we should no longer consider a "war" in any traditional sense. We've entered a new stage of post-global imperialism. Bush coined the phrase "War on Terror." Let's be honest about our intentions though. Bush was trying to exert specific geopolitical dominance through the use of military force.
I'm reminded of Badian's "Roman Imperialism in the Late Republic." The US abandoned justifiable pretexts for forceful intervention when we entered Iraq. Lawmakers are going to have a very hard time walking back that line no matter who writes the bill.
To question the continued use of the War Powers Act and subsequent Congressional concessions to presidential use of military power is a step in the right direction. However, members of Congress are elected by the people. The American people need to start paying more attention to the uses to which our military is put and vote accordingly. As a country we have, for far too long, let presidents, Congress and the MIC determine who we fight and where, without any input from the people who pay for it, both economically and physically. We have over 800 military bases around the world in, at least, 80 countries that we know of, with over 138,000 soldiers to man them. We have a force of Special Ops personnel that exceeds 70,000...more soldiers than most country's entire military. We spend more money on "defense" than the next 8-10 country's combined. In other words, the military structure, itself, needs to be examined in its entirety. Americans, for too long, have allowed the government a "free hand" in decisions that affect us all and driven us to our present, unsustainable position. Now the powers that be are gearing up for more war, perhaps with North Korea or Iran, and are establishing a new "raison d'etre" for potential confrontation with China and Russia. It doesn't matter whether you are a Democrat, Republican, Liberal or Conservative. These decisions, regarding use of force and military funding, affect us all and we need, collectively, to make sure we are a part of them.
36
Let's be honest--the U.S. is a global imperialist military power that is involved deeply abroad. Maybe a half million soldiers abroad doing whatever they want fighting whomever. The Pentagon and President decide when and where to go to war. We have a trillion dollar defense budget that is not about defending the homeland but offensive operations abroad against an amorphous enemy which poses little direct threat to us.
Yes Congress should rescind the 9/11 authorization but should not authorize any more military actions without an act of Congress. Bring home the half million military abroad; close the foreign bases abroad; stop the secret predator drone attacks.
5
Far beyond giving presidents a blank check to wage war, too many Congresses have simply given presidents a check book, giving them the freedom to fill in any number they want. And it continues, in the truest sense of the word, without any accountability. In 17 years, have we seen a meaningful and sustained victory in Afghanistan? What has been our return on investment?
We would be hard pressed to find any corporate board of directors continuing to fund a product or service for 17 years that failed to generate positive results. Both the executive and legislative branches have failed us.
6
Clout given up -- as in Congressional authorization to go to war -- cannot easily be regained. This is another good argument for term limits. Lawmakers unconcerned about their reelection prospects, and thus unafraid of political fallout, are more likely to accept their constitutional duty when it comes to voting on matters of life and death.
6
Congress really wants no part of this because the American people do not want or like war. They realize if there is a yes/no vote a yes may cost them reelection.
5
Bruce Ackerman's position as a Yale law professor is correct.
Neither an Imperial President nor an Imperial Congress should be able to skirt the responsibility of very carefully and morally considering the unintended consequences of going to war in the extremely rare case of only defending our country.
Wars of an Empire for any contrived, confused, and contempable rational should never be allowed or even considered by a free, powerful, and liberal democratic 'country' -- only a deceitful and devious Empire would act in such a manner.
Unfortunately for 'we the American people' our formerly proud and sometimes promising and improving country dedicated to the "perfection of democracy" of, by, and for the people and under "consent of the governed" has been acting more like an Empire since the hidden installation of a "National Security State and Double Government" [Michael Glennon] after the Second World War of Empires.
"We can't be an Empire".
Which is why 'we the American people' have to unite and ---
DUMP
EMPEROR
TRUMP
along with any other 'posers' for president or representatives, who only pretend to be representing the people, but working for the imperial interests of 'Empire-thinking' individuals and corporations.
7
Here is a better idea. Congress should exercise its authority under the constitution to declare war and the president follows that decision. Not vice versa. Stop passing the buck. Congress should vote on war and take full responsibility for the decision.
7
Eisenhower warned us of the dangers of the military-industrial complex and its need for endless war. That was 1961. Nobody listened.
Most of all, the American people didn’t listen. Year by year for more than 50 years the military-industrial complex has increased its power. Now a demagogue, with the military-industrial complex behind him, drives us toward war — and with the support of a substantial portion of the public. The same demagogue who promised them “America First” and an end to endless foreign adventures. Americans didn’t listen to Eisenhower; they have already forgotten Iraq; and they’ve forgotten that promise. How will they feel this time when their sons and daughters come back maimed and dead. Tragically they’ll still be supporting the ruthless autocrat they voted for and fanatically embrace. What hope is left for a country like this?
7
The most troubling war Trump is waging is the one he is waging against the Constitution and, by extension, the people of this nation.
4
First among the problems with this (already fuzzy, as noted) effort is trust, eroded by the lack of courage demonstrated by a congress,"reluctant to be held accountable," that, taken with their slack work habits, (including their lack of preparation on issues, most recently in the public view during the embarrassing facebook/zuckerberg hearings, and their uncritical herd mentality, whether in partisan or bi-partisan stampede, the latter still causing death and destruction in the wake of their vote for the bush-cheney Iraq war), earns ridicule, not respect, on both the red and blues side of the dart board at the local hereabouts.
Second, this kind of "chiseling," if you will, to re-frame, selectively, any constitutional or policy prerogatives will only bite back later when circumstances and office holders change...it's one thing to say that national security threats have to be substantiated before
we strike (assuming that the congress in its deliberations is less threatening, see above) and another to tie that to a list-du-temps when actions, wherever taken, are in response to, say, terrorism, than a country per se.
the same goes for the executive authority to hire and fire within the executive branch, whether it's an apparently adversarial mueller or
a presidentially appointed sessions...the good faith and wisdom of either is up to voters to validate or reject.
actual debate will streamline our laws but patchwork fixes will make them rattletraps.
1
" ... But over all the bill’s provisions are too broad and could bless military operations in perpetuity,"
Actually, the intent is "would bless", as directed by the corporate/military/industrial alliance, the real government of the fake Democratic Republic, known as the United States of America.
1
Dear Editorial Board,
This is getting to be too much from you. Only after Trump is in office do you suddenly talk about the Constitution and what it says about war. We've had this problem since Korea. I thought we had finally learned our lesson in Vietnam about open-ended and non-declared war. Three Presidents, multiple sessions of Congress and the media have proven themselves to be utterly spineless when it comes to their constitutional duties, each hiding behind AUMFs indefinitely.
1
President Theodore Roosevelt's approach to foreign policy was to "speak softly but carry a big stick".
My, how that wisdom has been forgotten by the current resident of the White House.
A balance of power between the President, Congress and the Supreme Court does not appear balanced.
The President has usurped some of the authority reserved for Congress.
This editorial rightfully calls upon Congress to assert itself in deciding when to use force against our enemies. Senator Kaine and Senator Corker are leading a bipartisan effort to wrestle back some control over a president who needs to be reined in.
In November, the voters must take action to accelerate the change in leadership in Congress as a first step in voting the president out of office in 2020, if other events do not precipitate an earlier exit.
4
It’s easy to lose sight of the possibility that Congress might willingly (or at least passively) cede war powers to the executive branch because a vote to enter or expand a conflict can potentially be politically damaging to an election-dependent representative.
2
At the risk of editing the esteemed editorial board's,
"When President Trump bombed Syria recently, for the second time in a little over a year, he did so, again, without authorization from Congress and with no real debate by lawmakers." and
"That’s not the way the system was supposed to work. Under the Constitution, decisions about sending American men and women into battle are divided between Congress and the president, with Congress deciding whether to declare war and the president commanding troops."
We need to return to exactly what the Founders, by their words, had in mind.
Where are the two parties in our Constitution? They aren't!
Originally there were 13 Colonies that became, after the revolution, thirteen states.
I paraphrase George Washington, the father of our country who said, "Don't make political parties. Let there be factions instead," which incidentally what we have today - factions.
Originally the two parties divided on one issue: Strong federal government v. States' rights. That was then.
As a people we need to dissolve all political parties and begin our experiment in democracy again with five members of the house where today we have only one, dividing congressional districts according to county lines.
Or admit Congress and their adoring press destroyed our democracy on behalf of their own self interests.
Then soon enough we'll be driving to the airports to pick up loads of Chinese laundry to wash, iron and fold to pay down our debt interest.
2
It all comes down to the person that is President.
I keep reflecting back to Collin Powell's "doctrine" which to me meant applying American military force only if one can justify the campaign, ensure swift victory, minimize casualties, and recognize that once you break it, you own it.
H.W. Bush took this advice to heart, working mightily to build a coalition for the first Gulf War and then stopping in the Iraqi desert and not surging on Bagdad. One of the best wars ever.
His son had less success but only after he moved his focus from Afghanistan were he was chasing Osama to move on Iraq. That was the darkest move and the one we are still dealing with today.
I still remember the environment in DC back then. The sting of 9/11 was still strong and it appeared that our focus on Afghanistan was paying off with the purple-thumb elections.
The build-up regarding what weapons were really being built in Iraq was coming to a boil. The goal was to let inspectors in, sort it out & report on whether Saddam had WMDs. I naively thought that a vote for support of going to war was nothing but a vote to support the inspectors. And we should remember, the bluff worked.
But before inspectors were permitted to do their work, the neocons actually launched a war, one that we have been in for over 15 years. One that has spilled into other wars.
In the end, that President Bush failed us. It all comes down to who is President.
3
"It’s time for Congress to step up to its responsibilities."
When does Congress do responsibility? Maybe last under Nixon?
7
The War Powers Act of 1973 exists under dubious constitutionality. Any change or amending of the original war powers enshrined in Article II require the full, formal Constitutional Amendment processes - passage by 2/3rds of both Houses and ratification by 3/4 of the states. The 1973 Act was passed over President Nixon's veto - ironic, that Nixon, of all people, was on the right side of the Constitution here- and has subsequently never been used or proven legal/constitutional. No US president has taken our country to war without congressional sanction. George W. Bush came the closest to testing the 1973 Act when he invaded Iraq, but did ultimately seek and receive congressional permission.
Kaine and Corker are right the address this dangerous spike in executive war powers, but they would be wise seek an actual Amendment before their revisions are challenged in the Court; which they inevitably would be.
"Washington Rules: America's Path To Permanent War" by Colonel Andrew Bacevich, published in 2010, lays it all out. This is who we are. Judging from the outstanding earlier comments of NYT readers, many are onto it, and wish it were different. The rest are just sleepwalking.
Any decision to use military force or paramilitary forces inside another nation-state would depend upon effective intelligence gathering. First, identify a threat, then locate those responsible for creating the threat, and then address the threat. But, invading another country is just that - an invasion. What we do to others, we should expect others to do to us. Do we want to set that precedent?
Also, there's more to this story than who should authorize military operations outside of declarations of war. We should also be wondering whether, should executive authority be expanded in any way, this authority could be used domestically as well as outside our borders. Say, send out our National Guard to control for and defend against an "imaginary" internal threat. Create a label, create a need.
Let me be blunt. The Constitution has been a mess in this area from the beginning.
Thomas Jefferson initiated the first war of the presidential era, his war against the Barbary Pirates, without so much as waiting for Congress to convene later in 1801. He did this using his authority as Commander-in-Chief. And yet the Constitution clearly frames an intention that only Congress should be able to declare war.
The War Powers act attempted to remedy this loophole, but did little but add ammunition to a wrong-headed president’s ability to start any war he chooses, if not end it. Trump could likely attack anyone he wanted to, and have a school of constitutional scholars defend him – under their defense of executive powers. And there would be logic to that defense, inasmuch as, at least from this point of view, a Commander-in-Chief empowered to protect the country must be able to act quickly, whenever he perceives that the national interest demands it.
The more that I ponder this issue and the continual expansion of presidential powers in general, the more that I conclude that it is our Constitution that is the problem. In a parliamentary system, the Prime Minster of a majority party who launched an unjustified war could be easily brought to account by a majority vote of no confidence, with new elections scheduled shortly thereafter. In contrast, the impeachment of a President is a tortured affair.
Chauvinism aside, is ours really the better system – in either war or peace?
1
The well known Military Industrial Complex is the only business that has a built in guaranteed profit structure by the government contacts. Money drives our military adventures as much as politics, and as Clausewitz said, "war is an extension of politics".
If congress people were disallowed to own stock or have interest of any kind in any military supply company, we probably would not have as big a national debt driven by the Pentagon run away spending.
Definitely congress should approve all military adventures.
7
Right now the U.S. is still mired in Afghanistan, our longest war ever, and is showing signs of "mission creep" in the Middle East where under President Obama it joined Saudi Arabia in the war that has turned Yemen into a failed state. And, of course, we were all surprised to learn that we are fighting in Niger and other African countries. We need Congress to retake its Constitutional authority to "declare war" and stop handing it over to the Executive. This is how democracies or republics like ancient Rome fail. Our nation, as General, then President, Dwight Eisenhower, warned learned the wrong lesson from World War II in heading down the path of a "military-industrial complex" with war power in the hands of the President not Congress. That was THE lesson we should have learned in Vietnam, but didn't. That was the lesson we should have learned from the Iraq War as well. What we are witnessing now is a continual strengthening of our military in the hands of the President and the weakening of our State Department. If Congress wants to act, they need to reverse this policy by insisting on an equally strong State Department with a policy that demands diplomacy first before any military action is contemplated and brought before them for a vote. The Corker-Kaine bill is just another blank check to give the President the power to wage war and not the State Department to wage peace.
23
Hast thou not heard?
Oceania will soon conquer our mortal enemies, Eurasia and Eastasia. All for you.
Beware: Your words bespeak of thoughtcrime.
Big Brother loves you.
Ah, @Jim Muncy It's Shakespeare meets Orwell. Are we not then a "band of brothers" or are you saying, "War is Peace"? Or, do you want to throw in a little good ole American Whitman:
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself;
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)
It is interesting just how sacred the Constitution is to the legislature until it is inconvenient for them to obey it. They shirk their responsibility to control the waging of war because they don't want to endanger their chances of re-election. They rubber stamp important appointments based solely on party affiliation. They ignore their duty to vet Supreme Court appointees if they can gain politically by doing so. They legislate away our guarantees of privacy in an ill defined fight against terrorism. But oh boy, when that sacred document lines up with what they already want to do they pull out their pocket copy and swear unwavering allegiance to it. It is little wonder that the American public widely dislikes Congress and holds it in such low esteem.
5
And remember "Oversight over the Exec. Branch?" Who would have thought this GOP Congress thought this meant continual investigations of the failed candidate to deflect attention from an openly corrupt and dishonest President?
....Trump's record of continual lies makes his ability to wage war all the more dangerous. It leaves us with distrustful allies and enemies alike (along with most of our own electorate.)
I'm very concerned that Israel and the Saudis will involve us in a war with their enemy Iran. If this new authorization contributes to such a war, the American people should be able to say "no".
We were not given the chance to say no to the Iraq war, to our great detriment. This time we must decide as a country whether we want to waste blood and treasure on a new middle east conflagration.
Also it's not only American lives at stake. We pay for mercenaries (contractors) out of our tax dollars at a huge cost.
When we take back our country in November we must elect people who will not allow a war that is not in our interest.
29
Congress needs to take back their role as a balance to the Executive Branch.
And then it should do some soul searching and ask themselves why the Country has so many enemies.
Is it because we have gotten involved in too many Foreign countries internal affairs?
Is it because of our Corporations take advantage of Foreign resources?
Is it because of Human Rights? I would propose that the answer to this question would be no. We do not even take are of our own Human Rights problems here in our own Country.
If we are attacked we do need to defend ourselves. But that is the only reason.
We should be using Diplomacy and only Diplomacy with Foreign countries.
A Cold War is better than a "Hot War" any time.
9
Congress needs to take back it's constitutional duty to be the decision maker when it comes to war. It is too important to put American men and women military in harms way by one person.
The President has the responsibility to protect Americans , but our continuing war that started 16 years ago needs not to be replicated again.
13
The War Powers Act passed in 1973 was also moved forward because of the actions of Lyndon Johnson. According to Section 4 (a) 1, the President must inform Congress within 48 hours if US forces are sent to a hostile area without a declaration of War. Those forces may remain no longer than 90 days unless Congress approves. Presidents,since Nixon, have referred to their constitutional authority as Commander in Chief. Members of Congress appear to be afraid to act upon their mandated responsibility. What creates a troubling issue for us under President Trump is his impetuous behavior , penchant for going rogue and a dictatorial approach to his Office. There is no question that action needed to be taken as we watched in horror the use of chemical weapons against women , children and an innocent population. When the President brings in all of the stakeholders and we present a united front, we instill confidence in our leadership and governance. It would appear that Congress learns of our military actions and policies through CNN, MSNBC and Fox. In the vernacular, Congress needs to step up and get it’s head in the game.
3
First, I take issue with the title of this article. It should be, in my opinion, "When Presidents Send Other Americans to War." Again and Again and Again.
Second, When a president has not only never had any experience in any of our armed forces, but was a draft-dodger during a war which took the lives of 55,000 other Americans, that person should NOT have sole power to decide when and where the brave men and women of our forces go to war. Congress should, at least, demand an equal role in sending our men and women into harm's way. The NYT points out that it is the role of Congress, not the President, to declare war, so where are our Congressional representatives?
10
Our Congressional representatives are creating cover for the one who wasted 200 million dollars on bombing empty buildings a couple of weeks ago.
What about the role of money? Our military industrial complex is blessed with over $750 Billion dollars in federal monetary support.
I assume this supports everything from boots on the ground, planes in the sky and significant industries and jobs in our country. As the largest percentage of our government spending, the influence can not be ignored. As Trump mused, why have all this if we don't use it? He was talking about nuclear bombs but the idea that the military should justify it's existence is there.
Our Congress has been revealed to be doing the bidding of their donors. While not a new phenomena, focus has not been put upon the donor class from America's military industrial complex.
So much money equals so much power in today's America. Our Congress is too easily influenced by the power of money and neglects the Constitution and small D democracy.
And so far the press has glossed over this. Our military always deserves support but to do so without questioning the vast monied interest which drives it does a disservice to us all.
12
I asked this question nearly fifteen years ago in a college classroom, and the question still stands today:
“When does the ‘War on Terror’ actually end?”
We are facing a legal precipice when it comes to the War Powers of the President vis-a-vis the Congress. It may only take one more horrific terrorist attack to convince the Nation - and its leaders in Congress - to enshrine the sweeping war powers that have been granted to the Presidency in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Congress must not abandon its duty under the Constitution to ensure that our Nation does not go to War arbitrarily and at the Presidents discretion. It must ensure that we do not enter military conflicts that will never end.
If the Congress fails to reassert its vital role in checking and balancing the war powers of the President, then I would fear not only for the future of our Nation but for the entire world.
14
If Obama was denied Congressional authorisation for war it was to make him fail as the President; if Trump is allowed a free hand with indiscretionery bombing at any part of the world, Congress finds itself helpless. Obviously, the unstoppable American war machine is always in operation consuming precious lives and resources of the country with little tangible results. In Trump's case, the wars and bombings like his tweets have become his pastime similar to what the video war games are to the kids. It's no surprise then that the constitutional provisions and norms are flouted with impunity and institutional checks have been thrown to the winds with no murmur around.
10
Republicans have figured out that war is an ideal economic stimulus. We spend about half our taxes on our military. As a jobs program, it employs 1.3 million in active service and 800,000+ in reserve. Over 700,000 civilians work directly for the military. The Defense Department is the largest employer in America.
We spend billions on weapons that provide defense jobs in congressional districts, plus massive guaranteed profits to defense contractors. Remember the infamous $500 toilet seat and the $1000 coffee pot?
It's not just military hardware and soldiers, it's also the the logistics: food grown by US agribusiness, $200 million a year for bottled war in Afghanistan, $20 billion a year for air conditioners in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's barely scratching the surface of the economic bonanza every war is for US companies.
The Iraq war was a $3 trillion dollar stimulus for the economy, above and beyond what we spend to maintain a massive military infrastructure. (Our debt, their profit.)
Betsy De Vos' brother Erik Prince is now a billionaire supplying private mercenaries to protect US personnel in the Middle East. Besides Richard Cheney, recent US wars have enriched the rich who own US war suppliers and contractors.
War is a great return on investment (campaign contributions) for rich folks than "tax reform."
War is good for business and booming business is good for Republicans.
Really think Congress will ever meet a war it doesn't like?
74
Guess I'm dopey, even though I hate war, having been in one, but I'm over the moon about all those good-paying jobs for my fellow Americans.
I love government jobs: They pay well; they provide outstanding benefits; they are secure; they don't work you to death; they give many paid holidays; they are safety-conscious; and they aren't fire-happy. In private industry, you can be fired because your boss doesn't like you for any number of reasons, rational or irrational.
Granted, the military budget would be more wisely used on infrastructure, schools, etc. But many Americans won't agree to that: defense needs yes, a new school, no.
3
War without end. In my lifetime, the United States has been mixed up in endless foreign adventures, Vietnam and the endless war in various Middle East countries; much of it would be defined as criminal if International law was respected. If this type of aggression was practiced by the likes of China or others, the United States would be outraged. Sadly, it is the United States that is the principal aggressor in the world. Since the end of WWII, the United States has bullied or toppled other nations, and engaged in targeted killings when it couldn’t get its way. Think of Fidel Castro. What real difference does it make who decides if we go to war? Congress or the president? The end result will be the same; America’s endless pursuit of power, violence and war. Endless war.
21
When you've got a hammer in both hands, everything looks like a nail just waiting to be pounded in, yes?
WE THE PEOPLE are the only ones who can/will change things, Mr. Steele.
Endless war is NOT acceptable and we must elect leaders who will step up and say "No More War".
That is why Socially Conscious women must step up and take one-half the power to create a new model of living. One that values every human being and puts social and economic justice for all citizens above profit-at-any-cost.
Being successful at politics hardly gives a President the ability to be Commander in Chief of troops. The current President cannot even play chess and think 5 moves in advance. Do you really want him to command our troops.
7
Going to war is the classic way for a President to get a 2nd term, because voters rally around the leader in that setting. Iraq did that for George W Bush (while making Cheney richer). However, extremely expensive for the Treasury, as well as thousands of U.S. soldiers dead, and tens of thousands maimed or ruined by PTSD. Not to mention the many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi women and children killed. But I would not be surprised if we had another war soon, given this President and this Republican Congress and this bought and sold Supreme Court (First Amendment rights of mega-corporations and mega-rich for unlimited election spending is so anti-democracy as to be clearly at odds with our founding fathers!). Fall of the Roman Empire it is...in slow-motion.
48
Yes, Will, and in the case of "making Cheney richer", as you say, the use of 'wars' as the greatest purveyor of 'negative externality' cost dumping on 'others' (we the people and America) in order to generate faux-profits for the already too rich, is a great danger which immoral and 'Empire-thinking' sociopaths can utilize to discreetly loot the world.
1
Let us keep in mind that a formal declaration of war by Congress confers far-ranging powers on the Executive Branch. To take over businesses, to confine people without trial, to direct the economy's war effort almost single-handedly. There's a reason Congress hasn't declared war since WWII.
7
In this age of nuclear weapons and cyber warfare the ability for a legitimately elected president to act immediately and decisively in the face of an immanent threat must be preserved. However, some form of effective prior restraint is clearly called for when the current president so freely characterizes perfectly legal due process such as the search warrant served on his attorney as representing an attack upon the country. It was for such a reason that Imperial Rome eventually resorted to a triumvirate controlling he executive branch - not that that proved any great success, either.
1
Congress has lost confidence in its ability to provide any of the country’s needs, nevermind its defense. So they are proposing an algorithm that tells the President how to act.
We’ve seen plenty lately of how algorithms work when divorced from human oversight. It’s time Congress actually thought about doing something. Anything.
7
Congress has lost the ability to think..........
This editorial is correct when suggesting that as well intentioned as it is, the Kaine-Corker proposal leaves too much unsaid, making this country still vulnerable to a president's arbitrary whims. It would seem that it would have to be a shared decision to go or not to go to war by both the executive and legislative branches primarily to provide the checks and balances our forefathers meant us to have...separate but equal.
We don't know when or if we will have a president like Trump again. I would hope we will have learned our lesson after electing such an erratic, mercurial, and unstable man to this highest office in the land. But history unfortunately has a way of repeating itself. I do know, however, that the reins of power need to be removed from the hands of only one person. Right now, the only way I can see that being done is for Congress to grow a spine and stand up to power hungry and misguided presidents now and in the future.
6
The public schools get weaker and more underfunded, kids get passed just to get rid of them from the school. Then they have no prospects for a skilled job. More and more are left out of society, and you expect these uneducated voters not to be fooled again by a media circus of sensationalism by a national news media going broke and desperate for eyeballs? Aided by Russian bloggers, hackers of the DNC worse than Watergate, and British psychological profilers. And distorted by tens of millions of dollars of ultra-rich donors with saturation PAC ads enabled by Citizens United. I love and hope for the survival of our country too, but how could you possibly think the voters will do better next time?
7
Congress has ceded war powers to the presidency because they do not want to be held accountable to voters back home when U.S. imperialist war escapades abroad result in catastrophe as they usually do. That calculation is a mixture of cynicism and cowardice.
War is, and always has been, a for-profit adventure. The United States is the world's greatest exporter of armaments. At the end of the day, and perhaps the end of the world, it is all about money.
114
And speaking of adventure -- and worse -- let's consider the current noise from the oval office re: the Iran deal and contemplate this scenario:
1. We pull out.
2. Iran reneges on its end.
3. We, along with Israel, have a pretext to go to war against Iran, with Congress standing by dumbly, and Bolton cheering us on.
4. It happens.
Improbable? I wonder.
8
And, it's clear that this administration is salivating over the fact that money can be made, at the expense of people's lives.
Every Republican better be prepared because any shedding of blood will be on their hands.
You won't find a single republican in this country who minds the blood on their hands. It's not their blood, and the war machine is profitable for them. After all, what's more important than money in this country?
Presidents may "make war", they may even "go to war" in words only, but they do not die in war. Young people usually make that great sacrifice. The world would be much different if those who advocate war had to lead the attacks in person. Our so-called "military" is about twice as big as needed, and ten times as costly. "Follow the money" and "the politics" and you will understand the reasons. A never-ending folly throughout history........
26
Has there ever been a president we trust LESS - or one who needs Congress involved in decisions about going to war MORE?
Because while this Congress may rubbeer stamp Trump's foibles and acts of , the Congress of 2018 will be ready to bring reason to his madness.
3
The rationale that we’ve used for decades is that “war” consists of military action with the objective of causing the surrender of an opposed force and either its destruction or the victor’s ability to impose political terms on the vanquished, or both. By that definition of "war", both Obama and Trump conducted war (Afghanistan against the Taliban, and ISIS, in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere); and Obama conducted war in Iraq in the last days of the Iraqi occupation. In all cases, both presidents had congressional approval or credibly claimed to.
In the case of Trump’s missiles to punish Syria’s Assad for use of chemical weapons, it’s not reasonable to argue that the action satisfies that definition of “war”. So, some argue that it was a legitimate use of military force as a means of conducting foreign policy and protecting our vital interests and those of our allies (regional abuse of chemical weapons) in a time-sensitive framework; and BOTH these objectives are central powers granted the president by our constitution.
The congressional argument may actually be workable, unless the president refuses to abandon the current consensus because he considers another would be too intrusive on his power to use military force to conduct foreign policy in what he regards as emergencies. However, note that the editors barely mention the War Powers Act, which already imposes a check on a president’s power to use military force indiscriminately, and which Trump has obeyed.
However, the general editorial argument that Congress “should be more involved in decisions like those about when and where America fights terrorists” – or ANYone -- while compelling on the surface still requires a very fine balance to be effective and not destructive of our interests. The editors brought up the intent of our founders, but these were enormously practical and cynical men, and they knew how dilatory and fraught with faction legislative considerations can be. There will be occasions when a president needs to DECIDE and ACT, and it is not in our national interests to place insurmountable barriers in his or her way to act when needed.
I like the Kaine-Corker proposal, certainly as a starting-point to negotiations between Congress and the president.
1
The Congress is bought and cynical and scared to act, but our Republican Presidents are just dumb (i.e. reflections of our electorate), and this does not make for good war decisions, even if all the flawed parties actually negotiate. Especially when all are elected, and war contractors are allowed to make unlimited campaign contributions. Getting the picture?
Before any new laws can be past that attempts to limit the President's ability to wage war, we have to have a Congress that actually functions. A Congress that places the needs of country over party. A Congress that accepts real news and doesn't allow itself to become brainwashed by false political media. A Congress that will defend our institutions instead of sitting on their hands while a demagog in the White House runs them into the ground. A Congress that is not controlled by big corporations that earn their money from wars. A Congress that is interested in serving the people instead of serving their political donors.
Until these things happen, this or any other law will not matter at all.
30
Take the advice of a wise old US army general instead of heeding the infantile instincts of Cadet Bone Spurs:
" ...we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations.
Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence—economic, political, even spiritual—is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
-- Dwight Eisenhower, 1961
102
And yet Ike lied about Vietnam, and took it upon himself to invade foreign countries when he thought it necessary (And I'm not referring to Little Rock).
[I'm beginning to conclude that nations have two primary groups to worry about: (1) its leaders; and (2) its citizens.]
3
"Take the advice of a wise old US army general instead of heeding the infantile instincts of Cadet Bone Spurs"
Did the Community Organizer in Chief ever heed such sage advice? The answer is "no".
I believe it was Colin Powell who said that we need to plan the whole war - and planning how to get out was just as important as knowing how to get in.
Quoting Ike is fine, but we need to read and understand the Constitution before committing troops anywhere.
4
“...with our peaceful methods and goals...”
The knee-jerking, typical world citizen is quick to say this is “to stop them!” in nearly every situation, everywhere... that killing “them” is the method towards ultimate peace.
Which never comes. Curious, that.
Imagine if one thousandth of any nation’s military budget was for the smartest men and women to sit down and figure out how to truly create lasting peace around the world. Imagine if all these nations had these departments talking and brainstorming together. What would they come up with?
It’s not easy to think macroscopicly and holistically, but that, we must, to step aside this mad hampster wheel smashing through history. We must start aggressively pursuing answers and new, better paradigms of human interconnectivity.
Us citizens need to start building these departments, demanding such thinktanks in governance. Enough wishing. Let’s intellectually fight for true solutions to war.
What will they find? I have suspicions. May the military industrial complex be wise enough to embrace such changes (do we all not ultimately want the same thing?)
P.S. A.I. will likely play a part I will bet.
3
"We need a law...."
Sure, except we already have one, called the Constitution, which gives Congress all the authority it needs already.
A new law will just be new words that Congress is too supine to read or enforce.
Anyone call the Secretary of Defense to the Hill to explain why Syria was attacked without congressional authorization?
I didn't think so.
A new law won't make a dysfunctional Congress suddenly work.
17
"Today, American troops are fighting extremist groups in at least 14 countries, with most deployments having occurred at the president’s sole discretion because Congress has given presidents a blank check to wage war."
The Board is right: the system is broken.
Congress isn't earning their pay these days--in perpetual gridlock, legislation either doesn't move or is held back for partisan purposes.
On major issues---immigration overhaul, healthcare, infrastructure--Congress is hamstrung.
But on war, there are other reasons beyond partisan bickering I honestly don't think that, since Iraq, Congress wants to go on record of voting for or against war. So, they relapse into inertia and let the president decide.
There's a huge danger here, as the Board notes. First, the president can act against any country or group he deems a terror organization. Second, it allows the president to indulge his pique against a country or leader, instead of waiting to calm down and rely more on diplomacy.
If Congress are cowards--which I believe they are--then the president is power hungry. Particularly this president who loves the fire and fury of American weaponry.
I can't think of a worse reason to go to war than to demonstrate American prowess. When a man with no strategy wants to appear strong or change the subject, he starts a fight.
For some presidents, war is the ultimate power trip. And the ultimate diversion.
39
The people who advise our presidents to engage in military actions want war. They love it. They make money as consultants and executives to the defense contractors that profit from war. The employees of defense agencies make money from overtime during military actions. They have a purpose in life, reason to to be enthusiastic about their jobs, a renewed inspiration to work.
War is patriotic. It's profitable. It controls over population. It is good for the planet and civilization. Stop writing articles about the suffering of people caused by war. That's their misfortune. Get with the program.
9
Why would Congress want to do anything that would lead to fewer wars and less corporate profits?
As George Orwell noted in "1984" and Aldous Huxley noted in "Brave New World", the US power elite needs continuous warfare. And Trump needs to expand wars to rally public support in the face of looming criminal charges. Wars are good for profits, good for the power elite, and good for corrupt presidents. And besides, the politicians need white Americans to hate many people. It's good electoral politics to sow fear and hatred.
13
Congress has all the power they need to limit the President's war making activities - the power of the purse. They cut off spending authority for the President's actions. They are too feckless to do so. That would require taking responsibility, that would require showing leadership, that would require moral courage, none of which they have.
7
Trump doesn't know better. Obama was a constitutional law professor.
And yet, Barack Obama, kept using the same authorizations to justify operations against the Islamic State and other groups that didn’t even exist in 2001 and to legitimize operations in many other countries, including Yemen, the Philippines, Kenya, Eritrea and Niger.
Does this tell you something ?
So much for teaching Constitutional Law.
8
Too few Republicans are willing to anger the Bully-in-Chief by codifying his limitations with being a Warmonger-in-Chief. Between Trump's eagerness to support Saudi Arabia's brutal military campaign in Yemen, and his likeliness to use a foreign enemy to rally domestic support, nothing can be taken for granted.
Another reason why we need to turn Congress blue this Fall.
21
Maybe democratic institutions and a "forever war' don't mix.
3
Good editorial, and the comments raise important points. What’s puzzling is why we keep electing leaders who never met a war they didn’t like. And why should Congress fear having to account for the combat deaths of young men and women when many of our representatives’ own constituents beat the drums for the military and for war? The day after Americans saw video of our pretty fireworks over Syria, Donald’s approval rating increased.
14
Ever wonder why all of these terrorist groups are sprouting up and growing by the numbers? American expansion and imperialism. Fighting wars in 14 countries constitutes American terrorism. Our number one export.
59
Agree and weep, our bloated DoD and forever war justification leaves children starving, ensures a suffering planet, and continuous violence is normal.
20
Our number one export after armaments.
8
Absolutely.
Unfortunately, if the expansion and imperialism wasn't at play, you would then have a vacuum, only to be sucked up by something like expansion and Sharia law.
Evil, from whichever side, always exists in humankind.
Pick your poison...
This is not an Empire, or even a kingdom. The most dangerous and potentially disastrous act a President can do is to send our Military into action. There absolutely needs to be rigid controls, to protect us all against a demented or malevolent person. Not to mention the garden variety dullard or Sociopath. Or both. Just saying.
23
The biggest problem may be a rhetorical one. The war on terror can never be defined or won because terror is a tactic not a defined enemy. You can't fight a tactic. You can start and expand a war on boxing but, if all I have left are my fists, you're gonna get boxed. Every underdog has used terror as a weapon. To give a president carte blanch to fight a war on terror, means we will be at war forever.
7
The editorial begins by quoting the Constitution that Congress decides on whom our country perpetrate war, then explains with some condemnation how the President has usurped this congressional authority.
But by the end, The New York Times says it would be too uncomfortable for Congress to perform this Constitutional responsibility so..........
You do know exactly who is in that oval office with the authority that you are comfortable in perpetuating --- with some minor window dressing?
1
The Viet Nam war developed a national fear of the military draft. It produced a strong anti-war sentiment in our citizenry because then every eligible male could be invited to the slaughter. This limited the combative options of our "brave" politicians so they decided on an "All Volunteer Army". It came into being in 1973 and was/is - generally - populated by our intellectually and financially challenged population. But, is no longer a worry of our population at large which no longer has "Skinny in the game of war horrors". This episode in our political history was the stepping stone to the obvious reluctance of our 'Congressional Elite' by emulating Pontius Pilate and "washing their hands" of any decisions concerning war. We have been embroiled in worthless combat for nearly two decades engendered by supposedly religious forces who have been killing each other for nearly 1400 years over a decision re the successor to Muhammad who was his cousin and son-in-law, Ali. Currently, we are also selling billions $$$$$ in arms and supporting the forces of Sunni Saudi Arabia in starving and killing Shiite Yemeni civilians who are suffering from "The worlds largest epidemic of Cholera". Our nation is failing from the disease of dereliction of duty from our President, Congress, Judiciary right down to our citizens who don't vote. The fabled U.S.A. is in the final stage of metamorphosis into a two-bit 'Banana Republic'. We are in dire need of a clarion call from a Champion!
1
"That has been the pattern for presidents since the forever war against terrorists began after the Sept. 11 attacks."
That has been the pattern since WW2. In the Americas it was the pattern even before that, see Gen. Smedley Butler's wars, the ones he called rackets for corporate greed.
We have a deeper structural problem with the control of war. We need to face it in order to fix it. It goes back much further than Dubya's disasters.
18
We know enough about Trump to know that regardless of any legal limitations on his power, he will go ahead and act. He is not at all constrained by the law. He believes the law does not apply to him. He has already committed any number of acts that constitute obstruction of justice, including the firing of Mr. Comey, and attempting to influence witnesses in Mr. Mueller's investigation. His "travel ban" is in clear violation of immigration laws and Constitutional protections, as Republican authors in this publication note today.
But Trump's disregard for the law is even more outrageous as it applies to war powers. This latest proposal by Senators Kaine and Corker does nothing but give him cover for unilaterally deciding when, and whom to strike. The proposal has no definition of "associated forces", nor does it have a sunset provision. There is no mechanism in the proposal to overturn a decision by Trump to commit our forces in any - literally any - scenario.
This proposal contains no check on Trump's power. It has handed the keys of the most powerful military in the world to a deranged, mentally unfit man, no questions asked.
We have already seen that Trump has deflected sound criticism of his regime with manufactured claims of "our enemies", simply to keep the support of his base. He would have absolutely no qualms about plunging this nation into a catastrophic war, if he thought he would benefit by it. And this Congress has just given him unilateral power to do so.
18
Several things missing from the editorial: Bush Sr also got an AUMF with respect to Kuwait; Bill Clinton not only did not get one in Kosovo, but ignored a failed AUMF vote in Congress; Barack Obama's war in Libya may have been authorized by the UN, but the UN is not part of our Constitution.
Clearly something is wrong.
But to demand a formal declaration of war, which has occurred only 5 times in our history, would handcuff the President unreasonably.
Perhaps impeaching a President who goes too far over the line (Grenada OK, Kosovo maybe not) might serve the purpose better. It can be done with deliberation after the event.
This question will shortly come to the fore if military action against a nuclear-weapon state like North Korea seems imminent.
1
The Constitution makes the president commander in chief whether he or she knows anything about war or not. In the beginning George Washington who knew something about being commander, but deferred to Congress for authorization could strike a delicate balance between the executive and the legislative branches.
But these days the commander in chief job becomes a political tool where presidents often try to show off their macho martial spirit rather than try to apply the letter of the Constitution. Congress takes the opposite approach as individual members attempt to hide in there ranks and avoid responsibility for wars and the deaths of their constituents in battle.
War and the responsibility for war becomes a game of numbers and the lives of our soldiers who are honored as heroes, but not respected enough to consider the value of lives lost and the value of what they are sent to die for. Politicians are more interested in getting enough money to keep their jobs, another reason that money must be taken out of the political equation.
27