War requires a formal declaration by congress - why didn't Congress do that for Iraq?

Answer 1

Because in the US a declaration of war causes several things to happen due to laws passed during WWII (and still in effect):

1) Automatic full mobilization of all military reserves
2) Military control over the economy ('war economy')
3) Removal of all limits on the size of the military
4) Removal of all caps on government spending

Needless to say - these measures are extreme enough that they are not necessary for the Iraq war.

Answer 2

Technically, the war in Iraq isn't a war. It's an "operation." Congress did vote to give the President power to deploy as many troops as needed etc. which is why they're now having major issues ending the war.

This isn't the first time this has happened since the last declared war was WW2.

Answer 3

It is a misconception that war requires a declaration. The last time the US declared war, on December 8, 1941, Congress was merely recognizing something that existed by virtue of the unprovoked Japanese attack. War is something that exists irrespective of its being declared or not.

Granted, we should have declared war before defenestrating the Iraqi regime, but that goes to the illegality of the war, something that a mere declaration would not have made legal.

The Nazi leadership was hanged for, among other things, invading Poland. The fact that Hitler declared war on Poland in retaliation for the intolerable Polish provocations (mainly that the Poles were breathing) did not make the Second World War into a legal war from the German perspective.

Answer 4

No wars have been declaired by congress since World War II... this is because after World War II congress voluntarily limited its power to declair war, instead granting the power to engage in military conflicts to the president. After the Vietnam "Conflict", however, congress sought to get more of it's power to "declair" war back, and reached a compromise in the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which imposed certain restraints on the power of the President in engaging in "wars" without congressional approval... hence the use of force resolutions passed by congress prior to the "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan...

There are good arguments for and against the current situation as it exists... on the anti-declaration side, it is argued that it is unnecessary to "declair" war, as war was not declaired in many conflicts, such as the Revolutionary War or the Civil War... further, some argue that "congressional authorization of use of foce" is a de facto "declaration of war".

There are also diplomatic reasons for a dislike of "declaring war" on a country, as it can often be perceived as holding an entire nation responsible for the actions of a few of its citizens, i.e. in Iraq we were at war with Saddam Hussein and his regime, not with the citizens of Iraq, or in Afghanistan we were at war with the Talaban, not the citizens of Afghanistan.

Furthermore, many against formal declarations of war also argue that such declarations "acknowledge sovereignty" of a target government often contended by the United States to be an illegitimate regime. By declaring war, the United States must acknowledge diplomatically that the target of hostilities are, in fact, the recognized leaders of the country with which the war is declared, therefore often weakening the argument for "liberating" a people of the said country from a tyrannical or illegitimate regime.

On the other side of the coin, those for declairing war usually argue that by not "declairing" war the President is oversteping his authority... or by using UN resolutions a a de facto "declaration" we are thereby giving away our soverengty to a supranational agancy that is not directly responsible to the citizens of the United States.

As for the legality of this policy, it is still up in the air. Congress and the Executive have argued over this issue for decades now, and the constitution is a little vague on the subject (given different interpretatios of the definition of "declaration"). The courts consistantly choose not to rule on this question... therefore it is likely that there will be debates on this subject for years to come...

Answer 5

Same reason they didn't do it for Korea, Viet Nam, Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm, or Bosnia.

What they did do was authorize the President to use military force at his discretion. A formal declaration of war is not necessary for the President to deploy the military.

Answer 6

Because the president is putting into place standards that will make his office somewhat of a dictatorship. He sees his office separate from the executive branch. Dick Cheney declared both himself and Bush unaccountable to Congress , stating last year that "vice president and president and constitutional officers don't appear before the Congress.”

Answer 7

Exactly.

Iraq is an undeclared war. It's unconstitutional.

That's why Ron Paul voted against it at the very beginning. Because America doesn't go into undeclared war. And, America is not in the business of "preemptive" war.

This war is unAmerican and our brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, friends, FELLOW AMERICANS are paying for it with their blood.

It's a sin.

Answer 8

Because they wanted to ride the fence and blame Bush for any failure, while taking credit for any success.