The War Powers Act of 1973 - Article Example

 War Powers Act On many occasions over the past 65 years, since World War II, the United States has been involved in military conflicts labeled as interventions, police actions, liberations, etc. but has not officially declared war since the ‘greatest generation’ was sent to the European and Pacific theaters in the 1940’s. The U.S. Constitution clearly states that only Congress may declare war but it also gives the President the title of Commander-in-Chief of the military forces. Presidents since the WWII era have invoked this title as their justification to wage war without benefit of notifying Congress or seeking Congressional approval. President Harry Truman set the precedent of circumventing Congress, and the Constitution, when he deployed troops to Korea in 1950. Congress attempted to regain its sole authority to declare war when it passed the War Powers Act in 1973 as a response to the undeclared Vietnam War. The Act allows the Commander-in-Chief to respond to emergency situations and deploy troops for a limited amount of time without a formal declaration of war. However, presidents from Truman to George W. Bush have summarily ignored this Act as well as their constitutionally limited authority by waging protracted wars all over the world. All have selectively cited the part of the Constitution that gives them authority over the military while ignoring the part that stipulates they do not have the authority to wage war on their own. According to the United States Constitution Article One, Section Eight, only Congress has the exclusive authority to “to declare war [and] grant letters of marque and reprisal” (United States Constitution). Presidents do not have this authority. However, the War Powers Act of 1973 circumvented the Constitution. The Act allows for the President to deploy troops to a country for 60-90 days without the consent of Congress (War Powers Resolution, 1973). It is intended to first allow the president to deploy troops in an emergency situation but secondly to strictly enforce Congressional authority to declare war, to adhere to the framers of the Constitution’s intention for the people’s representatives in Congress to decide if military action was in the nation’s best interest. Given the ambiguity of this license the office of President now has to initiate war, but the President could, hypothetically of course, act without specific congressional approval to wage war against a sovereign nation that did not pose a military threat. This could theoretically lead to a seemingly endless, bloody conflict that greatly impairs the credibility and security of the U.S. The U.S. has the ability to invade a country simply because it can and not because it is the option of last resort. According to the Constitution, the power to wage war rests solely in the hands of the Congress. The Nation’s Founders, as usual, had it right. Following Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt was obliged to ask Congress for approval to declare war. Prior to the Korean War, the government used military force only when necessary so as to protect the country’s vital interests. Many times since that era the policy makers’ characterization of ‘vital interests’ was flawed yet U.S. military involvement was always justified in this manner. Beginning with the Korean War, the country’s vital interests were no longer the measure by which to initiate military action. For example, the first President Bush committed forces to Somalia in the early 1990’s to be part of a United Nations humanitarian mission but public support quickly evaporated when the American soldiers began dying. President Clinton sent troops to the Balkans which proved to be successful because it caused minimal U.S. casualties while achieving political objectives. This conflict showed that the American public will tolerate military intervention even when not presented as protecting vital interests but only if it doesn’t cost a great deal of American lives. Somalia was a failure but military actions in the Balkans, Haiti, Panama and the first Gulf War have evidently encouraged the United States to initiate military action without any foundation in reason or common sense. The U.S can overwhelm most other nations militarily, but successful foreign relations and global political objectives are made more complicated and less likely if the military is continually used for dubious purposes (Larson, 1996). Three days following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Congress acted to further broaden the President’s power to wage war without its consent by enacting the War Powers Resolution. “The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations” (Yoo, 2001). This authority allowed the current president to order preemptive military strikes against any perceived terrorist group regardless of whether or not it has connections with Al-Qaeda or the 9/11 attacks. The instances of misused military power over the past half century have escalated in the past 15 years which has caused an ever-widening credibility deficit for the U.S. Now, more than ever, it is vital that the U.S. formulates a reasonable policy which dictates the specific guidelines for engaging in foreign military operations. Within this policy, American interests should always be unambiguously defined. An understanding of both the potential and limits of military intervention must be clearly understood. If not, situations such as the current Iraq debacle and its peripheral consequences including an increase of global terrorism and the growing hatred of America will continue. War produces change and if applied in an appropriate situation can prove to be effective, but if applied incorrectly will lead to disastrous consequences. The current involvement in Iraq and the Vietnam War proves this point. Although inflexible guidelines for engagement are impractical, political leaders must recognize that objectives must match the cost, whether counted by deaths, credibility or other peripheral circumstances. U.S. political leaders must also resolve to use military force only as a last resort or in self-defense and not simply because they have the ability. In short, they should follow the guidelines of the military itself. “Traditionally, the defense establishment has advocated military action only in cases where vital national interests are threatened and there is a clear, obtainable objective” (Ignatieff, 2000). Technology has played a major role in U.S. military actions and in the decision to act. This same advantage that allows America to intercede in foreign affairs when and wherever it wants is creating a divide between the U.S. and the rest of the world including its closest allies. The advanced technology of the U.S. military is far superior to that of any other country even those who are closely allied to the U.S. This makes the efficient integration of forces all but impossible. “Frequently, integrating allied forces means that the United States must compromise doctrinally” (United States General Accounting Office, 2001). A coalition of allied forces is not a proficient method by which to fight a battle but such a coalition is necessary to justify the action to other world governments. The U.S. cannot unilaterally invoke military force although it would be a preferred method, tactically speaking. Going to war alone would give the world the impression that the U.S. is acting as pirates, thugs and mercenaries thereby diluting the credibility and legitimacy of what the country is supposed to stand for. The U.S. military has become increasingly involved in foreign affairs for an ever widening range of rationalizations. At this same time, the advancement of information technology has enabled the transparency of a conflict on a global scale. War is brutal which translates to U.S. brutality depending on an individual’s perspective. No matter where the conflict or the reasons for deploying military forces, much of the world will likely be against the action. This underscores the reason for demonstrating extreme caution when making the decision to use force. The War Powers Act of 1973 was intended to rein in the president’s authority to wage war without the approval of Congress but was, in effect, unsuccessful and may as well not been enacted at all. The Act has been ignored by all presidents subsequent to its enactment. The major flaw of the Act was that it does not stipulate Congressional redress if a President declines to abide by the Act. The War Powers Act was written to restore the authority of the Constitution and assure that the balance of intended powers between the three branches of government is retained. The result of an imbalance of power has been realized during the present Bush administration and if not curtailed will lead down the pathway to the authoritative, totalitarian government the Founding Fathers fought a revolution to escape. The War Powers Act was of good intentions but ultimately was insufficient. If Congress truly respected the Constitution, it would impeach any president that did not strictly abide by it. The Nation’s Founders, as usual, had it right. Congressional power to wage war was a concept they respected as did the ‘greatest generation,’ of the WWII era as should this and all successive generations. Works Cited Ignatieff, Michael. Virtual War: Kosovo and Beyond. New York, N.Y.: Metropolitan Books, 2000. Larson, Eric V. Casualties and Consensus: The Historical Role of Casualties in Domestic Support for U.S. Military Operations. RAND Report MR-726-RC. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, (1996). October 15, 2007 United States Constitution. Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. October 15, 2007 United States General Accounting Office. Kosovo Air Operations: Need to Maintain Alliance Cohesion Resulted in Doctrinal Departures. Report to Congressional Requesters, Report number GAO-01-784. Washington D.C.: General Accounting Office, (July 2001). October 15, 2007 War Powers Resolution Public Law 93-148. 93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542 (November 7, 1973). The Avalon Project Yale Law School. October 15, 2007 Yoo, John C., Deputy Assistant Attorney General.  “Memorandum Opinion for the Deputy Counsel to the President.” Office of Legal Counsel. (September 25, 2001). October 15, 2007 Read More