English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

17 answers

Thats easy. The President is the commander in chief of the military. They go where he tells them to go. When it comes to the military, congress only handles military funding issues and in that way can indirectly pull troops back in a delayed reaction by defunding the military or an operation thereof. jason

2007-02-09 14:47:33 · answer #1 · answered by Magic Mouse 6 · 1 0

He is the commander in chief, he leads all the services and can order them as he wishes, "Constitution". I think this is the way it is suppose to work, because if someone attacks America we need to move the troops quickly in order to protect our country. This can be expanded abroad where America's interest are at hand. However after a certain time he has to go to congress for the funding. They can refuse to fund this surge and he will have to bring them back home. He has 90 days to have them there I think. If it works or is working I think Congress should fund it, but if it is getting worse then they should cut the funding and bring them home. I personally hope it works because that also is a way for all our people to come home. I do have my reservations that it will however.

2007-02-09 14:37:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I be conscious that the decision handed and that 17 (certain, seventeen) Republicans voted for it. The Democrats are hinting that a more beneficial binding decision would keep on with. So, it would look that the Democrats were, fairly effectively sorting out the water. The troop surge looks (so some distance) to were fairly succesfull in reducing violence in Baghdad itself yet no longer everywhere else int he u . s .. the problem with a surge of this nature is that it is not maintainable indefinitely and the insurgents will basically lie low till it passes or flow elsewhere in the country. both way it gained't "win" the conflict because, at this degree, it can not be gained. Iraq gained't in the forseeable destiny grow to be an effective, professional-Western democracy.

2016-12-03 23:37:24 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

When Congress approved of the invasion into Iraq, they gave the President the power to use the military as he sees fit in order to protect this nation. The only way Congress can control the military in Iraq is by cutting funding for the war. Bush is the Commander in Chief and in control of the military.

2007-02-09 14:41:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

Congress cannot stop the President from deploying more forces to Iraq directly. If Congress used the power of the purse, could it effectively prevent the President from deploying more forces. However, this action has never been done in wartime (even in Vietnam) as it is not a precise tool.

Congress granted the President in it's authorization to employ force wide latitude on the size and composition of the force. If Congress revoked this authorization, it would, in effect, spark a constitutional crisis if the President sought to continue the war without Congressional approval.

2007-02-09 14:40:23 · answer #5 · answered by Dr. Bob 1 · 3 0

Did Congress approve the additional troops for the Normandy invasion during WWII?

Did Congress approve the exact number of troops sent to Iwo Jima?

Did Congress approve the exact number of troops needed to invade North Africa?

Did Congress approve the exact number of troops needed to invade Italy?

Congress approved the declaration of war, then let FDR run it. Senator Truman conducted investigations into fraudulent war contracts saving the military money and lives. George Marshall claimed that Truman's efforts saved him the equivalent of at least 1 division.

As Commander in Chief he gets to decide how to execute the war (good or bad, right or wrong). That is in the Constitution.

2007-02-09 14:45:51 · answer #6 · answered by ? 6 · 4 0

The easy answer is that W is our president. The fact is that we are in a war and until there is a consensus on another action, W’s obligation is to do what he thinks is the right thing to do. The new democratic congress could have stopped it last month, but it would have been political suicide, don’t look for anyone stopping our war efforts anytime soon either because life is tough and you don’t want it get any tougher.

2007-02-14 12:10:17 · answer #7 · answered by BMC 2 · 0 0

He is the commander in chief, the decider. We don't need to wait for a committee to debate while our soldiers are in harms way. This power was bestowed upon the Presidency by Congress.

2007-02-09 14:40:02 · answer #8 · answered by papaz71 4 · 3 1

President Bush The best President of all times weighted as congress talked and all the WMD's were removed from Iraq.

2007-02-09 14:44:41 · answer #9 · answered by Ibredd 7 · 1 2

This is the big fat joke of Bush and Cheney's wars of aggression to spread democracy when in fact they hate and are in contempt of democracy. After overthrowing democratic elected leaders abroad, slaughtering the citizens all in the name of democracy but in reality to take over and steal natural resources and create "Free Markets" friendly to the American regime.
They have now usurped democracy at home...Mary.

2007-02-16 09:41:54 · answer #10 · answered by mary57whalen 5 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers