Debating the War Powers Act

[jkm_101_fso]

It looks like another "bi-partisan" group is at it again:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/08/war.powers/

This legislation from 1973 has been regularly ignored by most Presidents since it was passed, Republican and Democrat alike.

Does it need to be re-looked?

In this age of warfare, is the term "declare war on..." obsolete?

Would any new legislation encompass "peace-keeping" deployments, as well?

I'm no expert, but isn't the only "power" the legislative branch has over the executive branch in regards to the military is the "power of the purse" and said "war declaration"?

[Abu Suleyman]

All of the points made above may actually be valid, however, I agree that the War Powers act does need to be revised if not repealed altogether. In the first place, it is probanbly unconstitutional. But, in my opinion, it has been the source of much of the discontent between the Executive and the Legislative branch. Indeed constitutionally the only powers the Legislative branch holds over the Executive when it comes to war is the power to declare, and to fund war, but what a power. If Congress just used that power it wouldn't need a war powers act at all.

[wm]

I'm not a moderator, nor do I play one on TV, but I suspect that this thread has the likelihood to devolve into much more to do with politics than the focus of the Small Wars Journal as stated here:

Small Wars Journal facilitates and supports the exchange of information among practitioners, thought leaders, and students of Small Wars, in order to advance knowledge and capabilities in the field.

[jkm_101_fso]

I'm not a moderator, nor do I play one on TV, but I suspect that this thread has the likelihood to devolve into much more to do with politics than the focus of the Small Wars Journal as stated here:

Once again, I'm torn by the name of this AO..."politics in the rear". I certainly thought this would be relevant for us to discuss. The War Powers Act and/or changes to it would certainly have an effect on the military and how we are employed by the Commander-in-Chief. I think we, collectively, are mature enough to leave the Partisanship out of it. I'm certain this topic would be appropriate at ILE or the War College. I hope that I'm not wrong and it stays open for discussion.

[wm]

I think we, collectively, are mature enough to leave the Partisanship out of it. I'm certain this topic would be appropriate at ILE or the War College. I hope that I'm not wrong and it stays open for discussion.

. . .(or "me too") as they say in Ankara. I just wanted to raise a flag of warning.

[Steve Blair]

I suspect it will stay open...so long as folks behave themselves and refrain from sounding like "Meet the Press" or "Fox and Friends."

That said, I consider the subject germane from a historical standpoint because so many of our small wars have been conducted by executive order or fiat (something I believethe Small Wars Manual pointed out). The point at which a small war becomes a larger one (from a political and budget standpoint) is certainly worth discussing, and War Powers does speak to that to a degree.

Again, so long as no bandwagons or political campaign posters come out we should be fine. From my perspective at least.

[jkm_101_fso]

All of the points made above may actually be valid, however, I agree that the War Powers act does need to be revised if not repealed altogether. In the first place, it is probanbly unconstitutional. .

I think the notion of War Declaration maybe obsolete, considering that the likelihood of declaring war on another nation as a whole seems unlikely right now. The budget control aspect is the real power, however, we've seen Congress continue to approve the Iraq War budgets the Presidents seeks. Since it's already on-going, it will be virtually impossible not to fund. Probably more applicable before a proposed war starts. I'm still confused on whether a Bosnia-style conflict would be applicable here...not "war" for the U.S., but still takes funds to accomplish? What about a possible U.S. (UN) military intervention in Darfur? That wouldn't be war, necessarily, but would take funds, but not need a war declaration? What additional language to the Act could define this? I agree that it is outdated and does need refining.