Politics, News & Issues >
Political Issues
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould Congress or the President have more say in directing war strategy?
Results so far:
| President | 52% | 61 votes | Total: 117 votes | |
| Congress | 48% | 56 votes |
President
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesArticle II of the U.S. Constitution gives the President the authority to function as the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy (to include the Marine Corps), and by extension, the Air Force. Article I says nothing at all about Congress having any parallel authority in this regard. Therefore, the President, in his constitutionally delegated authority, in concert with his generals and advisors within the Department of Defense, should have the final voice in war strategy.
U.S. foreign policy needs to be focused by and on one individual. As we have 535 members of Congress, to do otherwise would lend us to 535 potentially different and individual views of U.S. foreign policy and/or war strategy.
That being said, Congress has two "checks and balances" over the President. First, Congress holds the "power of the purse." All appropriations bills relating to the conduct of a war (or anything else) must, according to Article I of the Consitution, originate in the U.S. House of Representatives; the branch of government closest to "We the People." Were we more careful in the reelection of the current President and the election of the previous Congress, given the disaster that Iraq is apparently becoming, whomever would have been elected in Mr. Bush's stead may very well have been hamstrung in the continued pursuit of his mismanaged war. Additionally, we would have been rid of Donald Rumsfeld two years sooner than we actually were.
Second, Congress has the constitutionally nebulous "War Powers Act" on which to fall back. This act puts constraints on what a sitting President can do, regarding the committing of U.S. force to combat. This act, put into effect after Lyndon Johnson embroiled us in Vietnam, was designed to prevent the same sort of thing from happening again. However, George W. Bush hornswoggled Congress into thinking his designs were different and in 1992, Congress virtually gave him carte blanche to pursue the so-called "War on Terror;" a move many have come to regret. Ironically, the War Powers Act, which seems to fly in the face of the President's Article II authority as commander-in-chief, has never been challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Yes, the President needs to have the room to act within his consitutionally delegated powers. He should have the final say in the prosecution of hostilities, only AFTER careful consultation with and approval by the Congress and the electorate which put him in office.
Learn more about this author, Russell Greer.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Congress
A quick answer to this question will be that "two heads are better than one." Three heads are much better. When you have 500 disparate individuals sit down and seek a final solution to a delicate situaion like war mongering, then you can expect them to come up with an acceptable strategy.
It is imperative that the US congress should have more say in directing war strategy. For example, the Iraqi war is a typical example of a very bad war. It is a con job at best. If the US congress had the opportunity to send in its own security detail to assess the situation on a first hand basis, rather that depending on the other security agencies, the war may have been averted.
Talking about wars, the last on US territory was the civil war. Bombading of the Pearl Harbour by the Japanese, or the 9/11 attack by Islamic extremists were not sustained efforts by the enemy, and so cannot be counted as an invasion of the US. Virtually all other wars involving the US have been fought, off her territory. What this implies is that, directly confronting the US does not seem to be on anybody's agenda. In the event that another country decides to wage a war against the US, it would be obvious to the members of Congress that their livelyhood is under threat, and as such, motivate them to arrive at an immediate solution to a dire situation.
As it is now, giving more power to the President would be akin to clearing the path for the birth of a megalomaniac. Surely, we have not forgotten Hitler's world war II.
Besides, at this point in the progress of humanity, should'nt the mantra be to make love not war? I think all available options should be explored for detente, and war should be declared as a measure of last resort.
Learn more about this author, Adewale Atewogbade.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Political Issues
- Should the federal government supplement funding for inner city schools?
- Should Congress raise drilling fees for developing oil and gas on public lands?
- Should National Institutes of Health scientists be allowed to consult for private drug manufacturers?
- Should Christian schools be required to accept children of gay parents?
- Will Senator Kennedy's death help to pass the health plan?
- Should Californians vote to amend their state constitution to exclude gay marriage?
