The intermediate position contends that, although the President may need congressional authorization to initiate “significant” or “real” wars, he need not obtain authorization for “lesser” or “limited” military operations.
....
There are three major problems with the intermediate war powers argument. First, as discussed in my last post, we have no strong evidence that the instances in which presidents have initiated the use of force without congressional authorization, whether in “limited” operations or not, have reflected any shared understanding between Congress and the President over the distribution of war authority. Some operations, such as in Panama or Grenada, may reflect only an understanding of a presidential authority relating to self defense or the rescue or protection of U.S. citizens, an authority typically accepted by those advocating the pro-Congress view of war powers. Other operations, such as the one in Kosovo, were conducted in the face of substantial congressional resistance, or eventually triggered constitutional complaints in Congress, as in Somalia. In other instances, it is likely that the lack of congressional opposition was merely ad hoc and tactical and did not reflect any general constitutional concession.
Second, the line between “limited” and “real” wars is highly uncertain and thus subject to substantial manipulation by the President. The duration and scope of military campaigns are almost always unpredictable and have a tendency to expand, as is becoming evident once again in Libya — for example, with the recent announcements that the United States is going to begin using armed drones there, and that other countries are placing military advisers on the ground. Indeed, even some of the conflicts that advocates of the intermediate position concede to be “real” wars, such as in Vietnam and Afghanistan, have started as more limited military campaigns.
Finally, the clearest articulation of Congress’s view on the question of what constitutes a significant enough commitment of forces to require congressional authorization is contained in the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which was enacted in the wake of the Vietnam experience. That Resolution refers to all situations involving the “introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.” Operations like the ones in Kosovo and Libya clearly qualify under this standard.
Bookmarks