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

Vietnam, Korea, The Gulf War and now Iraq are all undeclared.

2007-05-29 10:55:16 · 15 answers · asked by ligoneskiing 4 in Politics & Government Military

15 answers

Here is the reason. By the U.S. Constitution, Congress, not the President, has the exclusive power to declare war. Even if the President is deemed to be the Commander in Chief, he doesn't wield this power.

However, sometimes the U.S. President wants to send in soldiers to respond to a crisis requiring immediate attention. Instead of having to wait for Congress to spend potentially weeks bickering and deliberating -- he can just send the soldiers in on his own accord.

Over the years, the other branches of government have narrowly limited this practice. The president can only keep the soldiers there for a certain amount of time (I can't remember whether it is 3 months or 6 months) before some form of Congressional approval becomes necessary. However, the approval does not have to be a formal declaration of war. In President Bush's case, he got the approval he sought from Congress. Most of them signed off on it.

Speaking of Congress-- they will never vote to declare war in modern times because they know that it hurts their reelection chances, since it makes them look like warmongerers. They would rather have the President make the decision to send in soldiers, then they can always backpeddle if the war turns out to be unsuccessful or unpopular by saying that the President misled them on false data. Or that the war was originally the Presidents idea. Conveniently, if the war is happens to be successful, they can take credit for approving the soldiers.

Incidentally, some of the international restrictions relating to war do not apply when there has been no formal declaration of war declared. This might give our military more flexibility in combat, yet it might also be more violative of human rights. I guess this is a matter of perspective.

2007-05-29 11:46:23 · answer #1 · answered by LuckyLavs 4 · 1 0

Because that would make sense. We could end this in 30 minutes if we actually declared war. Just like we could have ended Vietnam, The Gulf War, Korea etc.

2007-05-29 11:00:03 · answer #2 · answered by KL15 3 · 2 1

The Gulf War of 1990/91 was a declared by congress.

2007-05-29 11:10:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Nobody in Congress has the guts to do it. It would give the President too much power for Congress to allow such a thing. In a declared war, the President is Commander in Chief first and diplomat second. The President acquires near-dictatorial power when war is declared. People like Jane Fonda, Cindy Sheehan, Sean Penn, and various other vociferous anti-war people can legitimately be tried for either treason or sedition. The people who consorted with the enemy (Jane Fonda during Vietnam, Sean Penn during Iraqi Freedom) would be arrested and tried for treason. Industry retools to produce war materiel and basic commodities are rationed. Our population is a pack of whiners. Can you imagine the weeping and wailing if coffee or rubber was rationed? The tearful platitudes are endless as it is over gasoline with no rationing, I shudder to think what would happen if you were allowed 10 gallons per month (or whatever).

I think it is plain why war hasn't been declared. It will never again be declared unless our very survival (as a nation) is in doubt.

2007-05-29 11:08:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

The constitution gives congress the power to declare war but does not define what the declaration or articles of war should look like.

Your examples were authorized and paid for by congress and executed by the president. In this case we have a distinction without a difference.

If it looks like a duck.....etc.

2007-05-29 11:23:01 · answer #5 · answered by Noah Tall 4 · 0 0

Police actions, as they are currently called, are expedient as far as getting into them is concerned.
The congress doesn't have the courage required to declare a war.
Then THEY would be responsible.
The big down side is that it not only leaves the door open to their avoiding responsibility for what happens, but it also gives our opposition in the war the ability to claim they don't have to follow the Geneva Conventions because the U.S. is not in an official state of war with them. They can say we are involved in a criminal invasion of their sovereign nation.

2007-05-29 11:07:27 · answer #6 · answered by Philip H 7 · 0 0

Because none of these wars have threatened us directly and because, unless the population is really up in arms, Congress will also not be willing to pass the declaration of war resolution. It makes sense - we should really only be declaring "ANY" war when the entire country thinks we should, not just a majority; and when we know who the enemy is and where the enemy is located.

2007-05-29 11:02:06 · answer #7 · answered by Ben 5 · 2 0

Those wars were all undeclared because we weren't fighting the country itself, but a group of oppressors or communists in that country. In Iraq we're protecting the Iraqi people, aren't we. It's like we just don't declare because we don't feel like it.

2007-05-29 11:03:20 · answer #8 · answered by Maus 7 · 0 1

who did you want us to declare war on random groups of terrorists? also the aim in korea and vietnam or the gulf war was not to crush those countries into submission but to stop the spread of communism and to keep saddam out of kuwait. iraq im not sure of.

2007-05-29 10:59:12 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

WW2 wasn't our war but US supplied the allies with lots of weapons like Britain for example.

2016-05-21 02:21:56 · answer #10 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers