StudentShare
Contact Us
Sign In / Sign Up for FREE
Search
Go to advanced search...
Free

The War Powers Act of 1973 - Article Example

Cite this document
Summary
The writer of this paper states that on many occasions over the past 65 years, since World War II, the United States has been involved in military conflicts labeled as interventions, police actions, liberations, etc. but has not officially declared war…
Download full paper File format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER91.8% of users find it useful
The War Powers Act of 1973
Read Text Preview

Extract of sample "The War Powers Act of 1973"

 War Powers Act On many occasions over the past 65 years, since World War II, the United States has been involved in military conflicts labeled as interventions, police actions, liberations, etc. but has not officially declared war since the ‘greatest generation’ was sent to the European and Pacific theaters in the 1940’s. The U.S. Constitution clearly states that only Congress may declare war but it also gives the President the title of Commander-in-Chief of the military forces. Presidents since the WWII era have invoked this title as their justification to wage war without benefit of notifying Congress or seeking Congressional approval. President Harry Truman set the precedent of circumventing Congress, and the Constitution, when he deployed troops to Korea in 1950. Congress attempted to regain its sole authority to declare war when it passed the War Powers Act in 1973 as a response to the undeclared Vietnam War. The Act allows the Commander-in-Chief to respond to emergency situations and deploy troops for a limited amount of time without a formal declaration of war. However, presidents from Truman to George W. Bush have summarily ignored this Act as well as their constitutionally limited authority by waging protracted wars all over the world. All have selectively cited the part of the Constitution that gives them authority over the military while ignoring the part that stipulates they do not have the authority to wage war on their own. According to the United States Constitution Article One, Section Eight, only Congress has the exclusive authority to “to declare war [and] grant letters of marque and reprisal” (United States Constitution). Presidents do not have this authority. However, the War Powers Act of 1973 circumvented the Constitution. The Act allows for the President to deploy troops to a country for 60-90 days without the consent of Congress (War Powers Resolution, 1973). It is intended to first allow the president to deploy troops in an emergency situation but secondly to strictly enforce Congressional authority to declare war, to adhere to the framers of the Constitution’s intention for the people’s representatives in Congress to decide if military action was in the nation’s best interest. Given the ambiguity of this license the office of President now has to initiate war, but the President could, hypothetically of course, act without specific congressional approval to wage war against a sovereign nation that did not pose a military threat. This could theoretically lead to a seemingly endless, bloody conflict that greatly impairs the credibility and security of the U.S. The U.S. has the ability to invade a country simply because it can and not because it is the option of last resort. According to the Constitution, the power to wage war rests solely in the hands of the Congress. The Nation’s Founders, as usual, had it right. Following Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt was obliged to ask Congress for approval to declare war. Prior to the Korean War, the government used military force only when necessary so as to protect the country’s vital interests. Many times since that era the policy makers’ characterization of ‘vital interests’ was flawed yet U.S. military involvement was always justified in this manner. Beginning with the Korean War, the country’s vital interests were no longer the measure by which to initiate military action. For example, the first President Bush committed forces to Somalia in the early 1990’s to be part of a United Nations humanitarian mission but public support quickly evaporated when the American soldiers began dying. President Clinton sent troops to the Balkans which proved to be successful because it caused minimal U.S. casualties while achieving political objectives. This conflict showed that the American public will tolerate military intervention even when not presented as protecting vital interests but only if it doesn’t cost a great deal of American lives. Somalia was a failure but military actions in the Balkans, Haiti, Panama and the first Gulf War have evidently encouraged the United States to initiate military action without any foundation in reason or common sense. The U.S can overwhelm most other nations militarily, but successful foreign relations and global political objectives are made more complicated and less likely if the military is continually used for dubious purposes (Larson, 1996). Three days following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Congress acted to further broaden the President’s power to wage war without its consent by enacting the War Powers Resolution. “The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations” (Yoo, 2001). This authority allowed the current president to order preemptive military strikes against any perceived terrorist group regardless of whether or not it has connections with Al-Qaeda or the 9/11 attacks. The instances of misused military power over the past half century have escalated in the past 15 years which has caused an ever-widening credibility deficit for the U.S. Now, more than ever, it is vital that the U.S. formulates a reasonable policy which dictates the specific guidelines for engaging in foreign military operations. Within this policy, American interests should always be unambiguously defined. An understanding of both the potential and limits of military intervention must be clearly understood. If not, situations such as the current Iraq debacle and its peripheral consequences including an increase of global terrorism and the growing hatred of America will continue. War produces change and if applied in an appropriate situation can prove to be effective, but if applied incorrectly will lead to disastrous consequences. The current involvement in Iraq and the Vietnam War proves this point. Although inflexible guidelines for engagement are impractical, political leaders must recognize that objectives must match the cost, whether counted by deaths, credibility or other peripheral circumstances. U.S. political leaders must also resolve to use military force only as a last resort or in self-defense and not simply because they have the ability. In short, they should follow the guidelines of the military itself. “Traditionally, the defense establishment has advocated military action only in cases where vital national interests are threatened and there is a clear, obtainable objective” (Ignatieff, 2000). Technology has played a major role in U.S. military actions and in the decision to act. This same advantage that allows America to intercede in foreign affairs when and wherever it wants is creating a divide between the U.S. and the rest of the world including its closest allies. The advanced technology of the U.S. military is far superior to that of any other country even those who are closely allied to the U.S. This makes the efficient integration of forces all but impossible. “Frequently, integrating allied forces means that the United States must compromise doctrinally” (United States General Accounting Office, 2001). A coalition of allied forces is not a proficient method by which to fight a battle but such a coalition is necessary to justify the action to other world governments. The U.S. cannot unilaterally invoke military force although it would be a preferred method, tactically speaking. Going to war alone would give the world the impression that the U.S. is acting as pirates, thugs and mercenaries thereby diluting the credibility and legitimacy of what the country is supposed to stand for. The U.S. military has become increasingly involved in foreign affairs for an ever widening range of rationalizations. At this same time, the advancement of information technology has enabled the transparency of a conflict on a global scale. War is brutal which translates to U.S. brutality depending on an individual’s perspective. No matter where the conflict or the reasons for deploying military forces, much of the world will likely be against the action. This underscores the reason for demonstrating extreme caution when making the decision to use force. The War Powers Act of 1973 was intended to rein in the president’s authority to wage war without the approval of Congress but was, in effect, unsuccessful and may as well not been enacted at all. The Act has been ignored by all presidents subsequent to its enactment. The major flaw of the Act was that it does not stipulate Congressional redress if a President declines to abide by the Act. The War Powers Act was written to restore the authority of the Constitution and assure that the balance of intended powers between the three branches of government is retained. The result of an imbalance of power has been realized during the present Bush administration and if not curtailed will lead down the pathway to the authoritative, totalitarian government the Founding Fathers fought a revolution to escape. The War Powers Act was of good intentions but ultimately was insufficient. If Congress truly respected the Constitution, it would impeach any president that did not strictly abide by it. The Nation’s Founders, as usual, had it right. Congressional power to wage war was a concept they respected as did the ‘greatest generation,’ of the WWII era as should this and all successive generations. Works Cited Ignatieff, Michael. Virtual War: Kosovo and Beyond. New York, N.Y.: Metropolitan Books, 2000. Larson, Eric V. Casualties and Consensus: The Historical Role of Casualties in Domestic Support for U.S. Military Operations. RAND Report MR-726-RC. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, (1996). October 15, 2007 United States Constitution. Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. October 15, 2007 United States General Accounting Office. Kosovo Air Operations: Need to Maintain Alliance Cohesion Resulted in Doctrinal Departures. Report to Congressional Requesters, Report number GAO-01-784. Washington D.C.: General Accounting Office, (July 2001). October 15, 2007 War Powers Resolution Public Law 93-148. 93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542 (November 7, 1973). The Avalon Project Yale Law School. October 15, 2007 Yoo, John C., Deputy Assistant Attorney General.  “Memorandum Opinion for the Deputy Counsel to the President.” Office of Legal Counsel. (September 25, 2001). October 15, 2007 Read More
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
  • CHICAGO
(The War Powers Act of 1973 Article Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1643 words, n.d.)
The War Powers Act of 1973 Article Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1643 words. Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/history/1542602-the-war-powers-act-of-1973
(The War Powers Act of 1973 Article Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1643 Words)
The War Powers Act of 1973 Article Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1643 Words. https://studentshare.org/history/1542602-the-war-powers-act-of-1973.
“The War Powers Act of 1973 Article Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1643 Words”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/history/1542602-the-war-powers-act-of-1973.
  • Cited: 0 times

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF The War Powers Act of 1973

The Vietnam War, Conflict on the US

The geopolitical realities resulting from the war created a multitude of undesirable effects.... lost political capital from the people of South Vietnam during the conflict when it incessantly bombed North Vietnam, an unexpected development that was detrimental to the war effort.... also lost credibility both at home and among all foreign nations following the outcome of the war.... Evidently the people who lived during and witnessed the Vietnam era did not learn the obvious lessons the war provided....
5 Pages (1250 words) Research Paper

How the Vitamin War changed America

The “war powers act” of 1973 put an end to extraordinary presidential powers during wartime.... the war influenced Americans in a multitude of ways.... By the end of the war, it had become clear that the government had blatantly misled the American public about the wartime goals of the American military.... The Vietnam War was lost inside America, and the victories and achievements on the war turf stood useless (Rother, 2007)....
3 Pages (750 words) Assignment

American History, Richard Nixon

• The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, passed in 1964, escalates the war and the involvement of US troops.... • Mounting casualties and media reports turn American public opinion decisively against the war • The Paris Peace Accords of 1972 end the Vietnam War • President Nixon signs a ceasefire in January 1973 that formally ends the hostilities.... Wade (1973) 7.... Wade (1973) ______ • Historic Supreme Court decision on abortion in the USA....
7 Pages (1750 words) Essay

The Invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq

The ‘war on Terrorism' as it is commonly referred to, is phrase coined by United States government officials and is primarily used to justify the military initiative de jour.... President George Bush stated the county's intent to initiate a ‘war on Terrorism' which he characterised as a prolonged battle against those that would employ terrorist actions along with the nations that enabled them....
13 Pages (3250 words) Essay

The Vietnam War's Impact on the United States

Congress made what they believed would be a lasting political statement following the Vietnam war by passing the war powers act in hopes of preserving the separation of powers as guaranteed by the Constitution.... lost political capital from within South Vietnam when it continuously bombed North Vietnam, a surprising development that was harmful to the war effort.... This paper "The Vietnam war's Impact on the United States" discusses the Vietnam war that became the benchmark by which American military limitations can be measured....
10 Pages (2500 words) Essay

US Appellate Court Decisions Relating to Presidential Powers

Nixon, President of the United States, et al.... certiorari before judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 418 U.... .... 683, Decided, July 24, 1974, by a unanimous vote (8-0, Justice Rehnquist having… 2 Facts of the case: A District of Columbia grand jury returned indictments against a number of President Nixon's office staff in matters relating to the Watergate burglary and the related White House efforts at a cover-up....
24 Pages (6000 words) Essay

National Security: the Protection of the Nations Citizens

Bush was largely elected to his second term because of his perceived competence regarding national security following the most deadly and dramatic attack on American soil by foreign enemies since the Revolutionary war.... The Cuban Missile Crisis is the closest that the United States and the USSR have ever come to fighting a nuclear war.... Nuclear bomb paranoia swept the post World war II world.... The Soviet Union, deeply involved in a cold war with the U....
6 Pages (1500 words) Article

President as a Dominant Force in Foreign Policymaking

Ordinarily, the constitution has divided the foreign policy powers between the President and the congress and both the legislature and executive plays overlapping and different roles in foreign policymaking.... Section 3 goes further to grant the President the powers to receive ambassadors or other foreign leaders to negotiating treaties and agreements (Dumbrell & Barrett, 2005).... ccording to the words of Edward Corwin, the constitution has granted the President certain powers capable of affecting the foreign policy and certain powers of general kind to the Congress, but the decisive and final voice in the foreign policymaking is left for the events to resolve (Dumbrell & Barrett, 2005)....
8 Pages (2000 words) Assignment
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.
Contact Us