US Armed Forces or Presidential Mercenaries?

[awdougherty]

Was it Pres Johnson who sort of set up the Presidential control of the military as it is today? I thought he did to go into Vietnam without Congressional approval.

Either way, it seems like the use of force is one area where a check and balance system doesn't apply. Seems like a dangerous loophole. We have a paid Army that goes to wherever the President beckons and executes his mission. It feels like a private, mercenary army.

Any thoughts?

[Case]

Was it Pres Johnson who sort of set up the Presidential control of the military as it is today? I thought he did to go into Vietnam without Congressional approval.

Either way, it seems like the use of force is one area where a check and balance system doesn't apply. Seems like a dangerous loophole. We have a paid Army that goes to wherever the President beckons and executes his mission. It feels like a private, mercenary army.

Any thoughts?

Presidents can act unilaterally, but only for up to 90 days without congressional approval.

I'm no fan of W, but in this case, he got congressional approval for the Iraq war. In this case, congress pretty much rolled over for him, but past congresses haven't been so kind. WW2 was a tough sell, in fact, until Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt was under some political risk after initiating the lend-lease agreements.

[awdougherty]

So there is a time limit in place. That's nice to know. Did Johnson expand this presidential capability?

If Congress rolled over, that's a little dispicable. Then they're just rubber stamping the action and are almost a part of that mercenary force. The Yes Men that are a formality but still technically make it happen.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Presidents have been sending the military on small missions without Congressional approval for a very long time. The early twentieth century was full of Latin American interventions that were not run by Congress. But, yes, Vietnam was the first major American overseas war to be run without a declaration of war. But nobody declares war anymore.

LBJ did have Congressional approval through the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, a blank check that Congress so resented that in the 1970s it passed the War Powers Resolution. This law forces the President to continually present costs and rationale for missions he/she has authorized. The WPR can cut funding for any Presidential adventure. No President has openly recognized the legitimacy of this law, and Congress has not pressed the case - neither side really wants this issue to be settled by the Supreme Court.

The problem as I see it is that Congress has effectively passed all foreign policy to the executive and defers to the executive branch on war matters too easily. Congress tends to give the President whatever powers he/she needs no matter the case, mostly for the pragmatic reason that international crises move a lot faster now than they used to and committee debates may have sufficed in 1812 but can hamper effective military policy in 2003.

I do think that Congress has a role, and it is playing it. It is not being very assertive of its powers, though, and prefers to offer nebulous support through wide open resolutions. It is going too far to call the US military mercenaries or a personal army. Bush is no Caesar. Congress has the powers it needs to deter willy-nilly interventions. It just has to choose to use it.

Troy

[Woolen Horde]

This is an old, old issue. The Constitution names the President as Commander-in-Chief, but gives the war declaration authority to Congress. The problem with this is how many of our conflicts actually require or have had a declaration of war? Very, very few. World War II was the last case of an official war declaration.

And it wasn't just LBJ. President's have been using their authority as Command-in-Chief without Congress for a long time. Hell, Teddy Roosevelt practically took over Latin America with the Marine Corps without bothering to tell anyone in Congress.

And the previous poster was correct that while technically the President has 90 days before he has to go to Congress, that law seriously needs to be tested by the courts, but neither side wants to risk losing that case, so neither the White House or the Congress pushes the issue. Cause if you lose that case, you then lose a TON of authority granted in the Constitution. Plus, in many ways, the 90-day thing is a moot issue. In terms of war fighting, very few modern-day conflicts are going to last anywhere close to 90-day.

But President's do go to Congress. Bush I and Bush II, for example. But that's because they want the air of legitmacy for what they're about to embark on. It helps cover their ass in case of anything that goes wrong. But not because the President feels that he needs to ask Congress for permission first.

Although, I'm thinking about other possible scenarios where the President wouldn't need Congress at all. Certainly, a Cold War scenario where the Sov Union had invaded Western Europe and the US has to throw itself fully into the fight would have already been blessed by Congress, as the treaty obligations to joining NATO were very clear when the Senate signed off on them. So the Prez wouldn't need to go to Congerss for pemission, even after 90 days.

[Lizard_King]

nevermind.

[Reeko]

Congress's biggest check and balance comes in terms of funding. I think Pres. Bush has requested $87 Billion for Iraq? If Congress wants to bring the troops home, all they have to do is refuse to pay for anything but a withdrawal.