A question about War authorization?

Question

We are at war in Iraq, but also a war has not been declared. My understanding is Congress authorized Bush to use force in Iraq, but did not declare war. Is that what it takes to invade a country and occupy it for years is for Congress to merely vote "permission to use force"? But the thing that really is confusing is ....if congress wants to deauthorize the use of force, Bush can veto a deauthorization?

This seems to not follow logically, How can congress have authority to say "go attack a country", but if they want to say "leave that country alone...we no longer want them attacked", the president can veto the latter?

Answer 1

Congress specifically said that their mealy-mouthed authorization to use force was the equivalent of a declaration of war.

You need to blame Congress for their cowardly abdication of their own responsibility on this issue. And, remember, that the Senate was controlled by Democrats at the time.

Answer 2

It is my understanding that a President can "make war" and Congress "declares war".
You have to look at this from the point of the view of the 18th century. Congress may not be in session when the United States is attacked and it may take days for Congress to make a quorum. The Constitution allows for the President to take action needed to make war. In a more modern touch, Congress may be nearly wiped out by a terrorists act. I'm sure that the ACLU would demand that elections be held and a new Congress seated before any talk of war were to occur. This is not reasonable so the President (or whomever suceeded to the office) can make war on the perpetrators.
Congress is responsible for funding the government and this means the military. Any spending bill is liable for a veto including spending of military appropriations. So yes, Congress could vote to defund the war and the President could veto the bill. Congress is only funding the war by dribs and drabs so it is more likely that Congress will just not authorize any more funds causing the military action to wither on the vine. No bill means that the President cannot veto what doesn't exist. Of course such an action would literally abandon our military on the field of battle. So this is not very likely.
For your last paragraph about voting to go to war and not being able to turn it off. Common sense dictates that war be an all or nothing event. Once war is declared, Congress should get out of the way and let the executive branch prosecute the war. The Constitution does not allow the Congress to cease military operations.

Answer 3

An authorization to use force and a declaration of war are essentially the same thing. Congress did not have the guts to "declare war" because that sounds bad, but "authorizing force" is so much better sounding. Essentially, Congress did not do their job to begin with. If you want to go to war, declare war, if not, don't do anything.

Answer 4

The Korean War and the Vietnam War were also undeclared. In both wars, the communist rebels in those countries recieved a significant amount of help from China. (China lost around 1 million soldiers when it was fighting for communism in Korea).

The U.S. took over the Vietnam War after the French decided to pull out of Vietnam War. The U.S.'s involvement in the Vietnam War stopped China from spreading communism to other countries in Southeast Asia.

If China was not involved in the Vietnam War, then Vietnam would be a democracy right now.

The U.S. exiting the Vietnam War caused over 1 million people in Asia to be killed.

Answer 5

The president can't declair war alone. The press can.

Answer 6

That's the way American foreign policy is enforced!

Answer 7

They're all crooked!