Free AI web copilot to create summaries, insights and extended knowledge, download it at here

Abstract

er, and some point out that they already have.While the debate is still ongoing as to the justification and consequences of military actions taken since WW2, I want to look at the recent Iran affair and judge it in these areas. Beforehand though, I will detail concrete definitions for war and military action in an attempt to show how order can come out of my proposal, even in this disordered world.<ul><li>War: a state of violent conflict that occurs only when at least two sides declare it to be in effect against each other.</li><li>Military action: violent actions taken by a nation’s military</li></ul>I define these terms as such to distinguish the two from each other; they are separate. Military actions can lead to war and war contains military actions, but the latter can exist without the former. The president ought to have the authority to take military action to defend the nation, even though he shouldn’t have the authority to declare war.And yes, to prevent abuse of power, Congress will need to outline in law how far the president can take military action (the 1973 War Powers Resolution has some good ideas); an all-out invasion, for example, would probably go under the “don’t do this without talking to us first” category. But I believe that under this theoretical law the president would be allowed to respond the way Trump did in Iraq.The assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani was in response to attacks against American citizens he had conducted and attacks he had planned for the future. It was done by a targeted drone strike that killed only six others besides Soleimani.This military operation was fast and efficient; it took out a threat to American lives and did limited damage to Iraq and Iran, in terms of infrastructure and casualties. Furthermore, Iran did not respond by declaring war. They did fire missiles at two US-occupied military bases in Iraq, but no lives were lost, and both sides expressed the intent to de-escalate after that.In summary, the Iran affair

Options

went well. The world is down one terrorist. The US demonstrated that it would not tolerate the killing of our citizens. Life lost was at a minimum. War was avoided. We got all these positive things at once. All of them came from Trump acting quickly and decisively.Consider if he had consulted Congress first and they had said no. Soleimani would have gotten away with killing Americans and continued his reign of terror. The US would look weak and uncommitted to our ideals.Imagine if Congress had said yes but we need to declare war first to authorize your military actions. Iran would have likely declared war right back at us and we would both have lost countless lives in a fight that could have been avoided.War should be avoided as much as possible, and to do that, sometimes smaller military actions, which are not war, are needed. The executive needs to have the authority to conduct these military actions because the speed and complexity of modern geopolitical escalation and warfare require efficient and decisive responses.Most nations don’t want war, and the threat of war only works when you’re not at war, so keeping Congress’ use of their declaration power at a minimum actually deters war. But the only way to defend our nation without using that power is by authorizing the president to take limited military actions when he deems it necessary.If you disagree with me, respond and outline why you think I’m wrong and what your perspective is. I recognize I’m no expert on the subject, I’ve only been thinking about this topic for a short amount of time, so criticism is welcome.I put these essays out, for one, to organize my thoughts so I can see where the gaps in my knowledge are, and for two, because I believe it is valuable, especially in this era of political intolerance, to share irregular and imperfect ideas; to communicate that I don’t know everything, but that I’m thinking about things from as many angles as I can in an attempt to come to some understanding.</article></body>

Defending Presidential War Powers

And Thinking About Our Definitions of War

“Obama and Biden await updates on bin Laden”

There’s been a lot of talk recently about presidential war powers. How much autonomy should the president have outside of congressional approval to take military action? How much authority?

These questions stem from a more fundamental one, one that is seemingly answered in the Constitution: can the president take any military action without a congressional declaration of war? The founders believed the answer was no.

In this essay, I would like to consider the benefits of another answer: sometimes.

The founders gave the president the powers of commander and chief of the armed forces because they understood that war could not be run by a committee. Congress, made up of the people’s representatives, was necessary to decide if the nation wanted to enter a war, but once approved, a single efficient and absolute authority was necessary to wage and hopefully win it.

I apply this same reasoning to the modern era. But because international relations and war have changed a lot since the 1800s, specifically the complexity of the former and the speed of the latter, threats of escalation can come quicker than before and do more harm. Since conflicts are more nuanced now, the role of the executive as an efficient and unified response entity is more valuable than ever.

That is why I believe the president should have some autonomy and authority to conduct military actions without a congressional declaration of war. But what do military actions even mean outside of the context of war? And here’s another counter-argument I’ve heard: without the context of war, military operations are just violent anarchy, not subject to investigation or accountability. A president could run rogue with this power, and some point out that they already have.

While the debate is still ongoing as to the justification and consequences of military actions taken since WW2, I want to look at the recent Iran affair and judge it in these areas. Beforehand though, I will detail concrete definitions for war and military action in an attempt to show how order can come out of my proposal, even in this disordered world.

War: a state of violent conflict that occurs only when at least two sides declare it to be in effect against each other.
Military action: violent actions taken by a nation’s military

I define these terms as such to distinguish the two from each other; they are separate. Military actions can lead to war and war contains military actions, but the latter can exist without the former. The president ought to have the authority to take military action to defend the nation, even though he shouldn’t have the authority to declare war.

And yes, to prevent abuse of power, Congress will need to outline in law how far the president can take military action (the 1973 War Powers Resolution has some good ideas); an all-out invasion, for example, would probably go under the “don’t do this without talking to us first” category. But I believe that under this theoretical law the president would be allowed to respond the way Trump did in Iraq.

The assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani was in response to attacks against American citizens he had conducted and attacks he had planned for the future. It was done by a targeted drone strike that killed only six others besides Soleimani.

This military operation was fast and efficient; it took out a threat to American lives and did limited damage to Iraq and Iran, in terms of infrastructure and casualties. Furthermore, Iran did not respond by declaring war. They did fire missiles at two US-occupied military bases in Iraq, but no lives were lost, and both sides expressed the intent to de-escalate after that.

In summary, the Iran affair went well. The world is down one terrorist. The US demonstrated that it would not tolerate the killing of our citizens. Life lost was at a minimum. War was avoided. We got all these positive things at once. All of them came from Trump acting quickly and decisively.

Consider if he had consulted Congress first and they had said no. Soleimani would have gotten away with killing Americans and continued his reign of terror. The US would look weak and uncommitted to our ideals.

Imagine if Congress had said yes but we need to declare war first to authorize your military actions. Iran would have likely declared war right back at us and we would both have lost countless lives in a fight that could have been avoided.

War should be avoided as much as possible, and to do that, sometimes smaller military actions, which are not war, are needed. The executive needs to have the authority to conduct these military actions because the speed and complexity of modern geopolitical escalation and warfare require efficient and decisive responses.

Most nations don’t want war, and the threat of war only works when you’re not at war, so keeping Congress’ use of their declaration power at a minimum actually deters war. But the only way to defend our nation without using that power is by authorizing the president to take limited military actions when he deems it necessary.

If you disagree with me, respond and outline why you think I’m wrong and what your perspective is. I recognize I’m no expert on the subject, I’ve only been thinking about this topic for a short amount of time, so criticism is welcome.

I put these essays out, for one, to organize my thoughts so I can see where the gaps in my knowledge are, and for two, because I believe it is valuable, especially in this era of political intolerance, to share irregular and imperfect ideas; to communicate that I don’t know everything, but that I’m thinking about things from as many angles as I can in an attempt to come to some understanding.