Isn’t the American Congress responsible for declaring war on other countries? This brings up the uncomfortable discussion of how to correct CEO overreach and insure accountability. Where does the buck stop when it’s passed around like a hot potato?
Every president you've lived under has sent Americans to kill and die in other countries, either with or without congressional oversight. Usually without. For reference, neither Korea nor Vietnam were ever declared wars by congress. For Vietnam Congress authorized LBJ to take "all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States". Korea was never a war, and instead was undertaken solely at POTUS's discretion as a "police action" in response to a UN resolution and while Congress did support the effort to procure money and blood to spend in Korea, they never formally authorized any sort of aggression in Korea.
The president has broad authority to take military action without the requisite congressional authorization for up to 60 days (plus another 30 to allow for withdrawal of troops). It's been this way since the War Powers Act of 1973.
And this was formally updated post 9/11 with the AUMF (Acceptable Use of Military Force) which gave the president quite sweeping powers without direct congressional approval. The caveat is that the AUMF is only for 9/11 responsible countries or affiliates. Given 9/11 was Al Qaeda and they are Sunni, and that Iran is Shia, they are not actually related since they want to also kill each other. Still, these powers are being bastardizes to limit the authority of congress.
The AUMF was an addition to WP so Iran's lack of support for AQ doesn't limit normal WP operations. Additionally sectarian concerns are more malleable than presented. As an example review Iran's long-standing support for Hamas which is Sunni-affiliated.
—Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory
authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers
Resolution.
Congress has largely abdicated a lot of its powers to the President and (to a lesser extent) the Supreme Court.
Working together to solve problems makes you a target to primary voters back at home (i.e., the most hardcore people in your party), so the incentive to to do nothing and enjoy the perks as long as you can.
I assumed Vietnam and Korea were officially declared but after looking it up I see they weren't.
It's kind of crazy they even managed to draft people without congress approving it. The world wars really did kill the old American system of government.
In all fairness, Congress is slow by design, and wars happen a lot faster than they used to. It would be insane if a hypothetical adversary could prevent the US from engaging in war just by preventing a Congressional quorum.
Presidential powers are certainly too broad and too deep, but I don't think a country can function in 2025 with the system the founders envisioned - shit just moves too fast these days.
I think if we actually had a good reason to be fighting congress would act quickly enough and a state that can't find enough consensus to even defend itself shouldn't exist at all.
That's true but misleading. Congress has consistently authorized military action in almost¹ all of the extended wars and conflicts the US has been involved in after 1942. It's not like those presidents have ignored Congress and not sought congressional approval.
¹ Weasel word: I'm sure I've missed some but the big one I can think of is Libya during the Obama years, which didn't have congressional approval and wasn't a declaration of war either.
War is impossible for Congress to disapprove. You cannot pretend that option is even on the table when a Potus has expanded power to push the country into a war; how can congress disapprove an ongoing conflict in a country that prides itself on using military force?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question, but I think most Americans are weary of war and don't want to get involved in another – even if we're proud of our military forces. I would expect my senators to vote against approving extended involvement in an Iran conflict or war past 60 days. Furthermore, I don't think it's impossible for Congress to disapprove anymore with how polarized our politics are. Certainly any kind of boots-on-the-ground action is going to be anathema to both parties as well.
I guess my larger point is how can Congress vote down a war that started 60 days ago and has a goal of lasting longer than 60 days? Even entertaining the idea they vote to pull troops out after a conflict, does an authoritarian, overpowered, executive branch comply?
That's an excellent question, I don't have an answer for it. I can easily see Trump and his admin ignoring a vote to withdraw from the Iranian conflict. It's not hard to imagine him justifying it with an all-caps post on Truth Social claiming "the American people have no confidence in our Congress" or something like that. In an ideal American government, we would expect the Secretary of Defense to step in and follow congressional orders by commanding the military to withdraw – but we know that Hegseth will unequivocally side with Trump.
That would be a Constitutional crisis.
In Bob Woodward's books Rage, Peril, and War, he reported that General Mark Milley, Trump's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during his first presidency, made what he called an "oath" with the other service chiefs to prevent Trump from starting a war with Iran during his final days in office, after January 6th, 2021. Technically, the CJCS and officers are advisors only and have no actual control of the military, but Milley's plan was to exploit gaps between what's legal and what happens in reality. He knew that any major military actions had to come through him, and if he said "no," it would gum up the works even if it's not legal.
The CJCS and their officers all take an oath to the Constitution, not the president; the same is true for all officers and enlisted personnel in the military. We can only hope they'd honor that oath.
I get what you're trying to argue but the point above was in the opposite direction - that congress has continually approved military action for what are (obviously) wars in all but name many times since 1942.
Congress is not-really-declaring-war even more than prior centuries, independent from how the presidents (particularly the latest in this case) also totally-aren't-declaring-war more without congress often than ever before.
Article II of the constititution grants the president broad authority to direct military operations, deploy troops, conduct military strikes and respond to threats to national security.
Carter deployed troops to Iran without congressional approval, Reagan deployed troops or air strikes to Grenada, Libya and Lebanon without congressional approval. George HW Bush deployed troops to Panama and Somalia without congressional authorization using executive authority and broad interpretations of the 2001 AUMF. Clinton intervened in Haiti, bombed Bosnia and Kosovo, and performed air stikes in Sudan and Afghanistan. George W Bush conducted strikes in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen without congressional approval. Obama used troops or Airstrikes in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan and notably sent US troops into Pakistan to apprehend Osama, a sovereing country without congressional authorization. Trump hit Syria and conducted strikes in Iraq against Iran without authorization. Biden conducted strikes in Syria and Iraq and assisted Ukraine in many ways although supposedly not through direct military involvement without congressional authorization.
I’m not sure why there is a sudden argument over whether Trump should be hamstrung, delay opportunities and eliminate surprise completely by having a congressional debate over acts of war that are not declarations of war that have been performed by virtually every president in modern history. It’s just not how the US Government works and Trumps actions in this case are completely in alignment with our norms.
In theory. In practice every president since before I can remember (maybe Carter?) has sent the military out for something like this. Trumps' supporters pointed that fact out often in his campaign. Too bad it didn't last.
Even Carter directed Operation Eagle Claw (unsuccessfully). I think we'd have to go back much farther to find a president who didn't order any military operations on foreign soil.
“We’re not at war with Iran,” Vance said. “We’re at war with Iran’s nuclear program.”
Maybe it's a legal loophole where the President can unilaterally wage war on specific concepts, people, and physical locations, as long as they keep saying it's not a war against a foreign nation.
