Comment on Who decides when the US goes to "war"

originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• cobysev@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Technically only Congress can authorize a war. However, the president can and often will undertake “peacekeeping efforts” or “counterinsurgency operations” or “targeted strikes” without congressional approval.

  I served in the US military during the Iraq War. Everyone refers to it as a war, but within the military, it was officially called the Iraq Campaign, as it was a military campaign sanctioned by the president. We couldn’t officially call it a war because Congress didn’t approve a war in the Middle East.

  Technically, the last war Congress approved was WWII. The Korean War, the Vietnam War, even our first foray into Iraq with the Gulf War… none of these are official wars. Just the president deciding to step in and get involved in foreign conflicts.

  source

  • Aux@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    “Special Military Operation”, lol.

    source

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Those people in the unconstitutional and unregulated organization called “president’s administration” in Russia (which de facto took over all the important functionality from parliament, the federal council etc since around 1996) sometimes consider themselves very smart and sensitive of irony. They are also very superstitious.

      Well, like people capable only of stealing and petty intrigues and achieving something at 10x the normal cost usually are.

      I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this was their inspiration.

      (While V and Z likely just meant “east” and “west”, since В and З when carelessly drawn can be mixed up more easily, if the left part gets covered in mud or something.)

      source
  • setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Just the president deciding to step in and get involved in foreign conflicts.

    From 1973 onward, no. While the first Gulf War, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq were not declared as wars, they were all authorized in votes by Congress.

    source

    • cobysev@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I mean, my point still stands. They weren’t officially declared wars, and they were the president deciding to get involved in foreign affairs. The only difference is that Congress decided to vote on our involvement from 1973 onwards.

      So our latest presidents have been more generous about sharing the decision instead of steamrolling ahead on their own. Probably a better move politically; he won’t take the full blame if the decision isn’t popular, like Vietnam.

      source

      • setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        You’re kind of drifting a little bit. I responding to “just the president deciding”- the “just” doing some heavy lifting to frame it as a unilateral decision without the involvement of Congress.

        The only difference is that Congress decided to vote on our involvement from 1973 onwards.

        That is basically completely the opposite from “just” the President deciding. It is involving an entire other branch in the decision. It’s not something to handwave away.

        So our latest presidents have been more generous about sharing the decision instead of steamrolling ahead on their own. Probably a better move politically; he won’t take the full blame if the decision isn’t popular, like Vietnam.

        They haven’t been “more generous”, they’ve been legally restrained by the War Powers Act, a piece of legislation passed by Congress.

        They weren’t officially declared wars

        You are right, they weren’t, but I don’t know the meaningful difference or point to be made when actions were still required to be authorized by Congress. As an aside, if you were in Iraq, you very likely received a GWOT service medal. GWOT standing for Global War On Terrorism. While Iraq operations were not in and of themselves individually declared a war, the use of the term GWOT by the US Government runs counter to the idea that people were “not allowed” to call it a war, when a medal awarded officially by the military uses the word.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  The War Powers Act limits use of force by the President to 60 days of military operations. After that.

  Congress still authorizes extended operations, even if they are not declarations of war.

  For example, the Authorization for Use of Military Force 2001 authorized military force “against those responsible for the September 11 attacks”, which authorized both operations in Afghanistan and more global force. This has been controversial, as the interpretation of which groups were partially responsible has been broadly interpreted. However it was still a congressionally approved authorization. Congress could, if it so desired revoke that authorization.

  Separately, the invasion of Iraq was authorized by Congress by the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

  source

  • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    So Biden, or any president could essentially start a conflict/war/whatever between the election and inauguration has been my take away.

    I am fascinated by the minutae of hypothetical government actions, because it seems like at this point we are going down a road where they are more likely.

    source

    • Dagwood222@lemm.ee ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      There’s what’s legally possible, and what can be done in reality.

      No one is going to let Biden unilaterally attack Canada; he’d be impeached AND thrown out under the 25th Amendment five minutes after he announced the attack.

      source

      • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        You say that but that isn’t how it would happen.

        There would be months or years of prep work, spreading propaganda that Canada was the source of our woes, that they were wronging us. By the time we invaded there’d be just enough “legitimate discourse” about the invasion that the Presidents supporters could claim any effort to stop him was political.

        There was a time not long ago where people said you couldn’t do lots of things or you’d get thrown out - then Trump did many of them, even got impeached (twice!) and stayed in office. In practice, these limits are at best inconvenient for a dedicated lunatic.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      So Biden, or any president could essentially start a conflict/war/whatever between the election and inauguration has been my take away.

      If a President wants to fart on the way out, they have a lot of authority. The President alone has sole authority to launch a nuclear strike, with no need for oversight by anyone else, so there are certainly bigger plays than “merely” authorizing ground forces to partake in a conflict.

      I am fascinated by the minutae of hypothetical government actions, because it seems like at this point we are going down a road where they are more likely.

      Recency bias makes everything in the now seem more important, and more uncertain than things in the past were at the time. There are many mitigating factors in a President who is on the way out who orders military intervention out of spite that will make it likely much less catastrophic than you might imagine.

      source
• meco03211@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  A big distinction is that it’s unlawful to follow unconstitutional orders. This is to hopefully prevent us ending up like the Nazis and a bunch of people trying to claim “I was just following orders”. So it oversimplifies the situation to say “disobeying the president” is unconstitutional. There’s nuance.

  source

  • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    But that’s the crisis right? The president would almost never say “go violate the constitution.” They would say “go arrest and occupy Congress, THEY violated the constitution “

    source
  • TornadoRex@sh.itjust.works ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Military swears an oath to the constitution not to the president.

    source
• AA5B@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  either the military disobeys the president (which is unconstitutional) or the president violates separation of powers (which is unconstitutional)

  I don’t see how disobeying your boss is unconstitutional. It may be detrimental to your job but it’s not unconstitutional

  As other posters have said, there’s lots of wiggle room in who can start military action, starting with the War Powers Act, so no violation of separation of powers either

  source

  • setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I don’t see how disobeying your boss is unconstitutional.

    Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives the President authority to command the U.S. military. The military refusing a lawful order is therefore going against the chain of command created by the Constitution.

    source
  • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I mean in the literal sense the president is commander in chief of the armed forces. Disobeying their orders is defying their constitutional authority.

    The issue is obviously more complicated than that just-so story. My point is not that if the president says to shoot the speaker of the house, soldiers must do it or they are behaving unconstitutionally. My point is that the president has the authority to direct the military to do things, and when the president uses that authority to undermine democracy in the US that act is a constitutional crisis because it pits two branches of government against each other in an irreconcilable way.

    source