Posted on Oct 26, 2017
Congress Owes Our Servicemembers an Authorization for the Use of Military Force
1.43K
13
6
3
3
0
This could be a spirited debate. I wonder, since we've not actually been in a declared war since WWII, is that the reason that we have politicians dictating the method our warfighters fight? If there was a declaration of war, wouldn't that, essentially, take the politicians' hands out of the planning in operations (not counting POTUS as that position is, be default, included in all military decisions due to the Commander-in-Chief status)?
Congress Owes Our Servicemembers an Authorization for the Use of Military Force
Posted from warontherocks.com
Warfare
Congress
Service
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 2
3
3
0
It is Congress' Constitutional responsibility to declare war when military action is deemed necessary. Their use of "authorizations" for the use of military force is an absolute abdication of their responsibility in the matter which they do because they are more worried about being re-elected than they are about actually DOING anything. If they vote for a declaration of war, they can be held accountable for that vote - and vis versa. They are like Jello - they don't want to be nailed down to any specific position on any divisive topic. And that is why they need to be relieved of their positions as representatives and replaced with people who can take a stand and be steadfast in whatever their position is.
Until Congress declares a war, we should pull our Servicemembers back from all conflicts we are engaged in. AUMF is a cop-out.
Until Congress declares a war, we should pull our Servicemembers back from all conflicts we are engaged in. AUMF is a cop-out.
(3)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
MAJ Bryan Zeski I can agree with this. I think the author's concern is that, without at least an authorization, the members of said actions could get screwed over regarding benefits. We all know how bureaucracies like to lose things, or change definitions of terminology.
I say, if we are planning on being there, officially declare a war. Let the military people do what military people are good at. If Congress is simply going to say, "go get 'em, but make sure you run everything by us" it adds another cog to the machine. I agree by them simply giving an authorization, they are trying to declare something, just not war, cuz that would be bad for polling.
I say, if we are planning on being there, officially declare a war. Let the military people do what military people are good at. If Congress is simply going to say, "go get 'em, but make sure you run everything by us" it adds another cog to the machine. I agree by them simply giving an authorization, they are trying to declare something, just not war, cuz that would be bad for polling.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
SSgt (Join to see) - Congress ALWAYS has to the power of the purse over any conflict. Even if they declare a war, it doesn't change their level of power - they can stop the war at any time. They're just using the AUMF as a hedge against bad publicity.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
MAJ Bryan Zeski - I agree. They authorize the action via funding. But are they part of the planning process? JCS reports to CIC. Perhaps some members of Congress, as representative of committees, are present, but they don't have a while lot of input on operations outside of "we'll allow you the money to do this."
Granted, who knows how they'll interject themselves if we actually have a declared war these days.
Granted, who knows how they'll interject themselves if we actually have a declared war these days.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1. No, we do not want to "take the politician's hands" out of military affairs. We absolutely must adhere to the Constitution and keep civilian control of all military actions and policies. Article 1, Section 8.
2. I do not like these "authorizations" as it lets those responsible pass the buck, plus gives too much power to POTUS.
I know, #1 and #2 sound contradictory, but they are not. Allow the Congress to control the military but also control what POTUS can and cannot do.
That is what our Founders envisioned.
2. I do not like these "authorizations" as it lets those responsible pass the buck, plus gives too much power to POTUS.
I know, #1 and #2 sound contradictory, but they are not. Allow the Congress to control the military but also control what POTUS can and cannot do.
That is what our Founders envisioned.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
MSG Stan Hutchison The intent of my comment was that we have no clear, direction currently. Too many politicians get involved & interfere in military decisions. Yes, Congress can declare war, but they are not, necessarily entitled to be a part of every military decision. The POTUS, or CIC, is, however. While Congress can approve action & funding for the action, the CIC is involved in operations. By "taking the politicians' hands" out of the planning and operations" you streamline the process.
The Congress, as a whole does not need to involved in planning and operations. This does not take civilian control away from the military. It just allows military folks to plan military things, once authorization is given by Congress to have a military operation in general, and large scale plans are cleared through CIC.
The Congress, as a whole does not need to involved in planning and operations. This does not take civilian control away from the military. It just allows military folks to plan military things, once authorization is given by Congress to have a military operation in general, and large scale plans are cleared through CIC.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google