The President's Power to Initiate War: A Historical Perspective

[phinds]

Let'm go, then kill'm with drone strikes

The Yemen-based branch of al-Qaida confirmed on Wednesday that the group's No. 2 figure, a former Guantanamo Bay prisoner, was killed in a U.S. drone strike.

http://news.yahoo.com/al-qaida-branch-confirms-no-2-killed-yemen-102604944.html

 

[MarneMath]

What did you expect? The guy gets sent back to Saudi Arabia, and then took a spot as 2nd-in-command of an Al Qaida group and then traveled to Yemen were drone strikes are known to happen.

 

[OmCheeto]

Let'm go, then kill'm with drone strikes

...

It's interesting reading the historical backgrounds on some of them. According to wiki, they are/were of 24 different nationalities.Mehdi Ghezali's itinerary* was interesting.

(brief background:
born in Stockholm Sweden in 1979
finished secondary studies in 1999
current age 34
started the following trip at age 20)

Secret Agent Trip of a lifetime!

Travel to Portugal, but have dad tell authorities you're in Algeria, because the Swedish Police are looking for you.
Stay in luxurious Portuguese prison for 10 months
Return home to Sweden to freshen up
Try and get enrolled in university in Medina, as Saudi Arabia reminds you so much of your home.
Return home to Sweden to freshen up again
Travel to London to study under cleric Omar Bakri, the Tottenham Ayatollah
Stop in Pakistan for reasons you don't have to divulge to Swedish authorities later (remember, your'e a secret agent. shhhhh...)
Stay in Jalalabad Afghanistan. Your only task? Playing with children...
Next up: meet up with some al-Qaeda sympathizers in the magnificent Tora Bora mountains of Afghanistan, and watch spectacular fireworks provided by the USofA.
Travel the old fashioned way down the mountainsides into Pakistan, where you are awarded a free one-way ticket, and a 2 year stay, to, you guessed it: Gitmo!
Return to Sweden on a private jet. (Total bragging rights here: estimated cost? $500,000)
Take some time off to write a book.
Return to Pakistan with an international crew of Swedish, Turkish, Russian, and Iranian citizens
The goal is to sneak into Punjab through a checkpoint, and not get caught.
But if you should, Yippie! You get a free two month stay in a fabulous Pakistani prison.
Of course, we will then give you a free ride back to Sweden, where a little time later, you will be allowed to crawl over a fence and attempt to bypass some security measures, to prowl around a nuclear power facility with your friends.​

What's next? Only Al_Qaeda_Travel.com knows for sure.

*The itinerary is straight out of wiki. I've only added the adjectives.

 

[phoenix:\\]

What did you expect? The guy gets sent back to Saudi Arabia, and then took a spot as 2nd-in-command of an Al Qaida group and then traveled to Yemen were drone strikes are known to happen.

Whatever happened to "due process"? How many children or innocent civilians were killed by this drone strike? I should not expect the U.S. government to behave similar to those that they allege they are protecting us from. Killing innocents all to get towards 1 individual sets a horrible precedent and is highly unethical.

 

[phinds]

Whatever happened to "due process"?

A drone strike IS due process for a terrorist.

How many children or innocent civilians were killed by this drone strike? I should not expect the U.S. government to behave similar to those that they allege they are protecting us from. Killing innocents all to get towards 1 individual sets a horrible precedent and is highly unethical.

Drone strikes kill fewer innocents than any other method INCLUDING just not going after the guy if you count the innocents he's going to kill in HIS quest for his own form of justice so all in all it's likely a net win for the world.

 

[phoenix:\\]

The U.N. official says it best:

Although not illegal as such, CIA drone strikes are also more likely to breach the rules of war than similar operations carried out by armed forces, who are more familiar with international law and can resort to non-lethal means because they have troops on the ground.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/37474231/...rt-drone-attacks-may-be-illegal/#.UedpyFMRPd0

Simply killing without consulting whether it'd be best to send in a team of soldiers to capture the person is not something I agree with as I believe it violates human rights. Sure, people like like Al-Shirhi are not good individuals, but they are people nonetheless and we should at least make an effort to capture and not simply kill them when confirmation of their person is located somewhere in the world.

We would not send in a drone if they were located within a public area of the United States, what makes these countries any less different?

 

[WannabeNewton]

Drone strikes kill fewer innocents than any other method INCLUDING just not going after the guy if you count the innocents he's going to kill in HIS quest for his own form of justice so all in all it's likely a net win for the world.

Do you actually have a reference for this or are you just pulling it out of thin air? A "net win for the world" really, I mean really? Say that to the faces of the families of the innocents who are killed.

 

[WannabeNewton]

We would not send in a drone if they were located within a public area of the United States, what makes these countries any less different?

Thank you. It's nice to see some compassion for humanity as opposed to warmongering once in a while. People on the internet can act as belligerent and cold-hearted as they want with regards to the innocent people killed and the effects it has on their families but until they actually go through something like that themselves, they have no right to sit behind a computer and act like those peoples' lives are just a "necessarily evil" or a "needed calamity".

 

[OmCheeto]

Thank you. It's nice to see some compassion for humanity as opposed to warmongering once in a while. People on the internet can act as belligerent and cold-hearted as they want with regards to the innocent people killed and the effects it has on their families but until they actually go through something like that themselves, they have no right to sit behind a computer and act like those peoples' lives are just a "necessarily evil" or a "needed calamity".

Until you've seen carpet bombing, like when my mom was around(Dresden), or nuking cities, when dad was around, or poisoning people, when my brother-in-law was around(Viet Nam), you need to settle down.

The world has never been nice.

hmmm...

But a while back, I told someone; "This planet is going to be really screwed up, until all these old people die..."

Keep dreamin' WBN. I'm actually on your side.

ps. Next time you think you want to dis Mr. P, stop by Al Jazeera first:

Scores killed in Guinea ethnic violence
At least 54 people burned or hacked to death in clashes between rival ethnic groups in West African nation

And that was just today...

Reality sucks.

Get used to it.

 

[russ_watters]

we would not send in a drone if they were located within a public area of the united states, what makes these countries any less different?

w.a.r.

Whatever happened to "due process"?

It is hard to fathom the vastness of that nonsense. "Due process" comes from the constitution. It applies to American citizens in civilian courts. It does not apply in war. I mean seriously; do you think we should send some state police over to knock on the Taliban's caves and serve arrest warrants?

 

[russ_watters]

Do you actually have a reference for this or are you just pulling it out of thin air? A "net win for the world" really, I mean really? Say that to the faces of the families of the innocents who are killed.

Statistics on drones are easy, but statics on other methods are not as easy. Still, a little logic goes a long way:

Drones are a replacement for fighter-bombers. Thus the collateral damage rate logic starts with the fighter-bomber rate. Then, we can look at how they are different:

1. They carry smaller weapons. So they can't kill as many people as a fighter-bomber.
2. They are stealthy. So they can attack targets when they are unaware and not taking extra steps to protect themselves...such as purposely hiding amongst civilians.
3. They can loiter longer than fighter-bombers. So they have more time for commanders to decide if/when to strike. This increases the odds of successfully attacking the target and decreases the odds of collateral damage.

 

[infinite.curve]

I have lived in Yemen for two years. I have personally met someone who uncle was, and maybe still is, at Guantanamo. Rather than just being sympathetic, let's scratch the surface of these 'terrorist' minds. They live in horrible conditions due to corrupt governments that are backed by counties, such as America, Britain, France, etc.

These terrorist obtain good education, for the sake of money. When they have obtained their degree, they still undergo hardship in receiving a job. Their hopelessness derives them to become the irrational individuals that they end up being.

When freeing the prisoners is in question, I say free them. Many of these individuals' families are going through hell night and day for their lost one, that did not get investigated scrupulously; did not have due process. this just builds 'antiwestism' in the region.

Take a minute and think to yourself: Why do they do the things that they do?

Please excuse me for my poor grammar.

 

[Lavabug]

I have lived in Yemen for two years. I have personally met someone who uncle was, and maybe still is, at Guantanamo. Rather than just being sympathetic, let's scratch the surface of these 'terrorist' minds. They live in horrible conditions due to corrupt governments that are backed by counties, such as America, Britain, France, etc.

These terrorist obtain good education, for the sake of money. When they have obtained their degree, they still undergo hardship in receiving a job. Their hopelessness derives them to become the irrational individuals that they end up being.

When freeing the prisoners is in question, I say free them. Many of these individuals' families are going through hell night and day for their lost one, that did not get investigated scrupulously; did not have due process. this just builds 'antiwestism' in the region.

Take a minute and think to yourself: Why do they do the things that they do?

Please excuse me for my poor grammar.

Nowhere in Al Qaeda's manifestos is there any talk of poor job prospects or economic hardships of their creed or countrymen. They do what they do because they adhere to Islamist theocratic and imperialist beliefs. They are not excusable.

Your grammar is fine.

 

[MarneMath]

Do you actually have a reference for this or are you just pulling it out of thin air? A "net win for the world" really, I mean really? Say that to the faces of the families of the innocents who are killed.

I have, and personally, I would have no problem doing it again.

 

[MarneMath]

I have lived in Yemen for two years. I have personally met someone who uncle was, and maybe still is, at Guantanamo. Rather than just being sympathetic, let's scratch the surface of these 'terrorist' minds. They live in horrible conditions due to corrupt governments that are backed by counties, such as America, Britain, France, etc.

These terrorist obtain good education, for the sake of money. When they have obtained their degree, they still undergo hardship in receiving a job. Their hopelessness derives them to become the irrational individuals that they end up being.

When freeing the prisoners is in question, I say free them. Many of these individuals' families are going through hell night and day for their lost one, that did not get investigated scrupulously; did not have due process. this just builds 'antiwestism' in the region.

Take a minute and think to yourself: Why do they do the things that they do?

Please excuse me for my poor grammar.

Still don't care at all. Your economy sucks, your government sucks and acts a puppet for a foreign government, so the only natural conclusion is to blow up civilians to express your outrage? Personally, I never minded attacks on military or government targets, because at least that's a clearly expression of dislike for the government and can be considered an act of war. What I don't understand is thisL

http://www.france24.com/en/20130615-deadly-bus-bomb-womens-university-pakistan-quetta

Female students killed for no other reason than being female students. I feel no form of empathy for anyone or their families who support these actions.

 

[russ_watters]

Nowhere in Al Qaeda's manifestos is there any talk of poor job prospects or economic hardships of their creed or countrymen. They do what they do because they adhere to Islamist theocratic and imperialist beliefs. They are not excusable.

While that's true, poor government and economy can push people toward extremism. That doesn't excuse it of course, but that's why other (humanitarian) methods of dealing with it are employed in addition to waging war against it. And of course even the war waging can have a humanitarian basis. The thought process for Libya was that if we help the rebels overthrow their Islamic terrorist dictator, conditions in the country might improve and extremism drop.

 

[dipole]

w.a.r.
It is hard to fathom the vastness of that nonsense. "Due process" comes from the constitution. It applies to American citizens in civilian courts. It does not apply in war. I mean seriously; do you think we should send some state police over to knock on the Taliban's caves and serve arrest warrants?

First of all, the purpose of invading Afghanistan was not to attack the Taliban, it was to dislodge Al Qaeda strongholds. We just decided it would be easier to declare war on the Taliban than to attempt to work with them in this process.

Secondly, do you not see how absurd it is to declare war on such a rag-tag and largely intangible group? The Taliban have no specific headquarters, they have no specific group of members and no uniform. They are almost as much of an idea as an organization and there are dozen of small groups who go under the banner of the "Taliban", many of who's members may also live normal lives as citizens. They do not have a well-structured chain of command, and many groups operate independently, while sharing a roughly similar set of goals.

There is a reason, that after 12 years of war, we've made little progress in defeating them. What we have managed to do, however, is kill tens of thousands of innocent people (the exact figure is probably much higher) in the process, and sent a few thousand American soldiers to their death as well.

Al Qaeda should have been treated as a criminal organization, and the Taliban members who worked with them arrested as criminals as well. And yes, they should have received due-process. Due process should not be something which only applies to those good enough to have been born or emigrated to the U.S., it should be an ideal and standard to which we hold all peoples, for the sake of human dignity, regardless of who they are or what their crime is.

 

[russ_watters]

It is absurd to say we have made little progress in defeating all Qaeda: it is a shell of its former self because of the war.

 

[dipole]

It is absurd to say we have made little progress in defeating all Qaeda: it is a shell of its former self because of the war.

I was referring to the Taliban. I don't think we ever did declare war on Al-Qaeda because they aren't affiliated with any particular nation, but I could be wrong on that.

 

[russ_watters]

I was referring to the Taliban.

Then you are even wronger: the Taliban-led government was deposed.

I don't think we ever did declare war on Al-Qaeda because they aren't affiliated with any particular nation, but I could be wrong on that.

We haven't declared a war in decades, but we went to war against them nonetheless.

 

[dipole]

Then you are even wronged: the Taliban-led government was deposed.

We haven't declared a war in decades, but we went to war against them nonetheless.

Deposed and replaced with what? A government which is full of corruption and completely dependent on the U.S., and has no ability to fight the Taliban on it's own? If we withdrew all our military forces from Afghanistan today, and cut of all funding, the Taliban would overrun Kabul in a few weeks or less.

You call that defeated? No, we've just forced them to occupy temporary homes for now. I'm sorry, but you're wrong, and if you think you aren't, then you need to get your news from somewhere besides the NY times.

 

[MarneMath]

I don't see how he is wrong. The taliban government was overthrown and replaced. It was defeated. So you're saying because it has the ability to come back that it isn't a defeat? Also, I wouldn't say that it's a sure thing that the Taliban will be well received again. You have to remember or rather be informed that the Taliban has always been a party dominated by the southern region that essentially forced the east, north and west to bend to it's will. Furthermore, the Taliban didn't accomplish this mission with no support, but rather heavily supported by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

As a side note, you make it sound like Taliban had good control over the country prior to the United States invasion. However, approximately 30% was held by the United Front.! The worse thing for Afghanistan wasn't the invasion but the death of Ahmad Massoud. An Afghani who fought against the Taliban, while in his territory supporting women's right. It should come to no surprise that he was a Tajik and one still highly respected everywhere but in the Pashtun south.

Commence your Google search!

 

[dipole]

I don't see how he is wrong. The taliban government was overthrown and replaced. It was defeated. So you're saying because it has the ability to come back that it isn't a defeat?

Not only does it have the power to come back, but it's still actively waging war against us and continues to kill U.S. troops and undermine both U.S. and Afghan efforts to establish any kind of stability in the region. So yes, that isn't a defeat, unless you're just desperate to beat your chest and chant "USA!" and have to stoop to calling what is only a temporary shift in power a defeat.

Also, I wouldn't say that it's a sure thing that the Taliban will be well received again. You have to remember or rather be informed that the Taliban has always been a party dominated by the southern region that essentially forced the east, north and west to bend to it's will. Furthermore, the Taliban didn't accomplish this mission with no support, but rather heavily supported by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

And? What is your point? It doesn't matter if they'll be well received or not, the Afghan military can't withstand them on their own, and without U.S. backing they will almost certainly be overthrown and a new Taliban regime will emerge (probably followed by more infighting and maybe even yet another civil war). You think the Taliban doesn't currently receive backing from Pakistan and money from outside sources?

As a side note, you make it sound like Taliban had good control over the country prior to the United States invasion. However, approximately 30% was held by the United Front.! The worse thing for Afghanistan wasn't the invasion but the death of Ahmad Massoud. An Afghani who fought against the Taliban, while in his territory supporting women's right. It should come to no surprise that he was a Tajik and one still highly respected everywhere but in the Pashtun south.

They didn't have as much influence in the North, and that's largely because it is a different ethnic region than the rest of the Pashtun-dominated country. But guess what, ever since the invasion their presence there has grown stronger and stronger. I know who Ahmad Massoiud was, and he was killed by Al Qaeda long ago, so what exactly does he have to do with this discussion? Just throwing a name out there for fun?

Commence your Google search!

Please, commence returning to your seat and sitting quietly.

 

[MarneMath]

Not only does it have the power to come back, but it's still actively waging war against us and continues to kill U.S. troops and undermine both U.S. and Afghan efforts to establish any kind of stability in the region. So yes, that isn't a defeat, unless you're just desperate to beat your chest and chant "USA!" and have to stoop to calling what is only a temporary shift in power a defeat.

Tis the nature of an insurgency. As far as I am concerned the defeat is in regard to their rule of the country as it's official government. While they have the ability to fight in the south, I don't see much evidence for further strengthen in other regions. Mostly because ethnically they are not accepted in other regions. In my opinion, it's the defeatist opinion that simply states that the Afghan military and police will not be able to hold off the insurgency. I disagree. I believe the ANA and ANP will do fine. After all, they have been fighting this war for as long as we have. I'm sure they have learned something.

And? What is your point? It doesn't matter if they'll be well received or not, the Afghan military can't withstand them on their own, and without U.S. backing they will almost certainly be overthrown and a new Taliban regime will emerge (probably followed by more infighting and maybe even yet another civil war). You think the Taliban doesn't currently receive backing from Pakistan and money from outside sources?

I really don't understand what you're trying to get. I was stating that even prior to the invasion Afghanistan wasn't necessary a unified country, and essentially have been in continuous war for about as long as I have been alive. While Taliban claimed to be the official government since they ruled the majority of the country and controlled Kabul, I don't think in the near future the Taliban will have the ability to win again. In the last 18 years, there has been a massive geopolitical shift in the region on who supports which group and which tribe supports which leader. I don't believe the East, especially Laghman or Kunar will fall so willingly to another round of Pashtun rule.

They didn't have as much influence in the North, and that's largely because it is a different ethnic region than the rest of the Pashtun-dominated country. But guess what, ever since the invasion their presence there has grown stronger and stronger. I know who Ahmad Massoiud was, and he was killed by Al Qaeda long ago, so what exactly does he have to do with this discussion? Just throwing a name out there for fun?

Define dominate. Last check, approximately 40% were Pashtun and of which not all Pashtun share the same alliance. 25-30% as Tajik, with significant less in other regions. IRCC, Hazara would be the the only other ethic group that would support a radically fundamentalist state, . In the event of another civil war in Afghanistan, it's obvious that Kandahar, Kabul, and Herat will fall to any Pashtun uprising, with Kabul probably being the most difficult battle since Khost and Ghanzi are extremely difficult places to fight against. As for why I mention Ahmad Massoud, that should be rather obvious. It definitely relates when you mention the United Front. In fact, I find it hard to mention the UF without ever mentioning him, and I imagine most people do too.

Please, commence returning to your seat and sitting quietly.

As far as I am concerned, you're just speaking from your arse. You keep saying that the Taliban will return and Afghanistan will simply return to pre-2011 reign of terror. While history has a tendency to repeat, I don't believe that it's a necessary fact that should be accepted as gospel.

What I fail to see is how or why you disagree with Mr. Russ. Perhaps a difference in opinion of what the word defeat means, sure. However, I don't necessary believe that means anything Russ said is wrong. My key contention is the idea of little progress. From 2001-to 2006 the Taliban was essentially a non-started. Other misguided wars surely screwed us in this regard, but nevertheless the Taliban has been weaken if from no other point than a point of view regarding it's consolidation of power and freedom of movement. Nevertheless, I think further discussion in this vein with you would be rather pointless, because it's clear that you will choose to argue your case by your definition of what victory, defeat, success, and progress means without setting out a metric.

 

[mheslep]

...has no ability to fight the Taliban on it's own? If we withdrew all our military forces from Afghanistan today, and cut of all funding, the Taliban would overrun Kabul in a few weeks or less.

You have a source for that comment? Some idea of the size of the Taliban versus the size of Afghan security forces? The fact that Karzai is crook and unpopular does not mean the Taliban are loved and would be thrown flowers in Kabul after they kill or munilate little girls in classrooms at every opportunity.

 

[BobG]

As to the original post, does it matter who the second-in-command of Al-Qaida is? Someone will be. The impact of releasing a few Gitmo detainees is minimal in practice, even if what they do later in life makes good campaign rhetoric.

As to the Taliban's future prospects, one should look at the history of civil wars in general - especially ethnic civil wars. Defeat doesn't come until the group is annihilated or until the group no longer has any ability to obtain more weapons. As long as the Taliban still receives Pakistan support, they have a realistic chance of regaining control.

In Afghanistan's case, the part of history that constantly repeats itself is that the groups most successful in controlling the government have been backed by foreign countries - with success being a very relative term. Staying in control for an entire decade is incredible success in Afghanistan's case (only USSR and USA backed governments have achieved that milestone since Zahir's fall in 1973).

The Taliban may regain control, but they'll never control the entire country (they didn't their first time around either) and I wouldn't bet on them still being in power a decade later. Pakistan may have a nuclear weapons program, but they aren't really a superpower. An Indian backed group, or an Iranian backed group, or some other foreign backed group will knock the Taliban out of power within a few years. It only takes a regional power looking to expand its influence to "win" in Afghanistan - even if "winning" usually turns out to be more of a drain than an asset.

Afghanistan has been one 40-year long mess and I just don't see that ending anytime soon.

 

[OmCheeto]

... The worse thing for Afghanistan wasn't the invasion but the death of Ahmad Massoud. An Afghani who fought against the Taliban, while in his territory supporting women's right. It should come to no surprise that he was a Tajik and one still highly respected everywhere but in the Pashtun south.

Commence your Google search!

Thank you. I remember that I liked Massoud. With some minor googling, it is all coming back to me, as to why.

I just watched part one of a documentary of unknown origin: "Ahmad Shah Massoud: Lion of Afghanistan, Lion of Islam".

5 minutes into part 3, I can see why people think that there is little hope for Afghanistan. The "forty year mess", seems to not be of their own doing.

-------------------

But the stories behind the Gitmo prisoners I've read so far, are all very interesting. Prisoner #1 (numbered ISN 002, as ISN 001 did not make it to Gitmo), was an Australian, captured in Afghanistan.

His itinerary, starting at age 20, was as colorful as Ghezali's:

1999, Albania, joined the Kosovo Liberation Army
1999, Pakistan, to study Islam :uhh:
2000, Still in Pakistan, began training with Lashkar-e-Taiba, one of the largest and most active Islamist terrorist organizations in South Asia
2000, Kashmir, quote by Hicks; "There are not many countries in the world where a tourist, according to his visa, can go to stay with the army and shoot across the border at its enemy, legally."
2000, Afghanistan, gets to meet the man himself, Osama bin Laden
2001, Pakistan, watches 9/11 on TV
2001, Afghanistan, captured by the Afghan Northern Alliance and sold for a $1,000 bounty to the United States military
2001, Gitmo!
2010, writes book​

awww... My Journey.

hmmm...

:yuck:

-------------------------
ps. Sorry I keep rolling my eyes at these guys, but a twisted version Joseph Merrick's infamous statement keeps popping into my head; "I am not a terrorist! I am, a mamma's boy..."

 

[reenmachine]

Ending up at gitmo , what a life.

 

[phoenix:\\]

w.a.r.
It is hard to fathom the vastness of that nonsense. "Due process" comes from the constitution. It applies to American citizens in civilian courts. It does not apply in war. I mean seriously; do you think we should send some state police over to knock on the Taliban's caves and serve arrest warrants?

Is the war necessary?

 

[russ_watters]

Is the war necessary?

The war on terror? Today? IMO, yes.

 

[phinds]

The war on terror? Today? IMO, yes.

Or we could just let them kill us whenever and wherever they want. Not a very appealing alternative.

Phoenix, what did you have in mind when you asked if it is necessary ?

 

[mheslep]

... "Due process" comes from the constitution. It applies to American citizens in civilian courts. It does not apply in war. ...

The war on terror? Today? IMO, yes.

I agree war and criminal proceedings should treated very differently and traditionally have been. However, I am disappointed in the lack of modern, useful definition of how and under what circumstances a state of war is said to exist. Historically, Congress actually declared war against other nation states, turning on war legal war powers, and nation states could and did surrender, turning war powers back off again. Modern circumstances have changed, but modern statesmen have failed in their obligation to reestablish clear legal definitions between war and where due process applies once again.

I mean seriously; do you think we should send some state police over to knock on the Taliban's caves and serve arrest warrants?

Try to see that from the other side: should the United States remain in a state of war, granting war powers to its President, because of some guys in caves on the other side of the world?

 

[russ_watters]

I agree that the definition of war has become murky, but I'm not so sure that actually indicates a problem. Why? Because war powers DON'T switch on and off. Several levels:

1. If that was the intention of the Constitution, maybe it needs to be amended to clarify, but as written the "declare war" power of Congress has no meaning (it isn't explained).
2. Functionally, no president has accepted the War Powers act's validity an several have openly violated it. Others ignored it, only to have Congress bail out the act by passing an unsolicited approval.
3. I don't see a problem here that needs fixing. Could you perhaps provide a historical example or hypothetical scenario where there would be a problem that would benefit from congress stepping in?

 

[mheslep]

...
3. I don't see a problem here that needs fixing. Could you perhaps provide a historical example or hypothetical scenario where there would be a problem that would benefit from congress stepping in?

A US President enjoying war powers like those granted by Congress post 9/11 can deploy and engage the US military anytime, anywhere outside the US, without declaring an emergency, without answering to anyone but the voters, or maybe never. I think that's a problem, and smells of empire, certainly not the limited government spelled out in the founding, repeatedly. A peace time president can deploy the US military, but not engage them absent an emergency, which must be explained to Congress in 90 days, etc.

 

[russ_watters]

I think you mean "dictatorship", not "empire". An empire is any country that seizes territorial claims in war. And I think you mean "separation of powers", not "limited government". The issue here is whether one branch has a complete power that another can't check - and whether they should.

As a veteran; as a matter of policy, there is one critical leadership principle of the military at work here: unification/singularity of command. Yes, it goes against "separation of powers". But it is necessary for maintaining a clear vision for a military operation. You can't run a war, even a little one, by committee.

Second, as a matter of history, there really has never been a question of whether a small military engagement must be approved by Congress. There have, in fact, been dozens of undeclared military actions throughout history, including some of our more famous wars, such as the First Barbary war in 1801 and the Indian Wars.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/List_in_order_all_wars_in_American_history

Wiki claims as many as 125 in our history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Other_undeclared_wars

So you see, the dilemma posed by a changing definition of "war" doesn't actually exist. The distinction between "war" and "not war" has never been clear and that has never mattered.