Curtailing the War Powers of the Executive Branch
Does the President have too much authority to start armed conflicts? Yes, according to former Secretaries of State James Baker and Warren Christopher in a piece in today's NY Times. They propose scrapping the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and instituting a new system of "closer consultation" between the legislative and executive branches in relation to the use of military forces. Baker states the law is ?ineffective at best and unconstitutional at worst", which is a determination I largely agree with. He also notes that "As a consequence, the 1973 statute has been regularly
ignored ? a situation that undermines the rule of law, the centerpiece
of American democracy.?
The statute was intended to curtail the powers of the President in light of the Vietnam Conflict, a response to both President Johnson and Nixon who continued the prosecution of the conflict without it ever being declared a "war". Under the War Powers Resolution, The President has up to 90 days to get congressional approval for military action once it has been initiated, but in light of our new technological gains and rapid deployment capacity, an entire conflict could be completed within this span (such as Grenada, Panama, Haiti, etc.). A formal declaration of war has also not been made since WWII, which has ensured that our current conflicts have been technically "operations".
I must say that it is perhaps a sad state of affairs that we have to address such an issue. But as a subsequent summary article also points out, McCain has stated that he "would take military action without going to Congress first" but only if it was deemed necessary. Determinations of necessity are entirely subjective and I don't know (in light of this current administration's messianic tendencies) if we can continue to trust a single executive to have the judgment to commit troops or initiate military action that could result in a protracted conflict. I remain a fan of the concept of pluralistic thinking and also providing several levels of review, particularly in relation to national defense. Our service members (former Army myself) deserve much better than to be sent off needlessly into conflict by the self interested whims of politicians.
The statute was intended to curtail the powers of the President in light of the Vietnam Conflict, a response to both President Johnson and Nixon who continued the prosecution of the conflict without it ever being declared a "war". Under the War Powers Resolution, The President has up to 90 days to get congressional approval for military action once it has been initiated, but in light of our new technological gains and rapid deployment capacity, an entire conflict could be completed within this span (such as Grenada, Panama, Haiti, etc.). A formal declaration of war has also not been made since WWII, which has ensured that our current conflicts have been technically "operations".
I must say that it is perhaps a sad state of affairs that we have to address such an issue. But as a subsequent summary article also points out, McCain has stated that he "would take military action without going to Congress first" but only if it was deemed necessary. Determinations of necessity are entirely subjective and I don't know (in light of this current administration's messianic tendencies) if we can continue to trust a single executive to have the judgment to commit troops or initiate military action that could result in a protracted conflict. I remain a fan of the concept of pluralistic thinking and also providing several levels of review, particularly in relation to national defense. Our service members (former Army myself) deserve much better than to be sent off needlessly into conflict by the self interested whims of politicians.