The United States of America both is and is not presently at war with Iran. If you ask the Administration, someone like, oh, Vice-President James David Vance,* you'll hear that of course the U.S. isn't at war with Iran, only with Iran's nuclear-bomb program.
The thing about war is that the other side gets a vote. Flip it around; say the Royal Theocratic People's Republic of X†, no, Z‡, er, Y decided that American nuclear weapons were a clear and present danger and by dint of either remarkable aerospace engineering or a sabotage organization that leaves SOE in the dust, levels Pantex. Downwind of that event, would you suppose our government might consider the act tantamount to a declaration of war?
It's likely that the Trump Administration's avoidance of calling it an actual war is an effort to dodge having to go to Congress for retroactive permission, hat in hand and bearing a "What I Did With The Military This Summer" essay as called for in §1543 of the War Powers Resolution (U. S. Code Title 50, Chapter 33) -- and the problem with that is, despite the title, the Resolution doesn't give a damn if it's called a war or not; Congress gets involved "in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced— (1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances; (2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, [...] the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth— (A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces; (B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and (C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement."
Only Congress has the power to declare war, and as far as Congress is concerned, only they get to decide to wage warlike activities. They've been in the habit of passing legislation that amounts to an advance pass for the Executive Branch to get into specific fights, but even then, they want to have just enough engagement to claim credit if it works out okay -- and the Constitution gave them the responsibility.
It's a tissue-paper barrier, one that only holds up as long as everyone plays by the rules. "Playing by the rules" has not been a hallmark of the Trump Administration. Nevertheless, it is there and Congress isn't liking the taste of it.
Governments in general have a fondness for short, victorious wars. Armed conflicts are real morale-boosters. Governments also have a well-established history of misjudging the duration of such wars and the likelihood of success, and governments that put the decision-making for wars in the hands of one man have been especially bad at this. Mr. Trump has got his war, however much reluctance his Executive Branch has to call it one, and we'll be finding out how that goes. Congress has issues of its own to figure out, having to do with Separation of Powers and being treated with caviler disregard -- and we'll be finding out about that right along with them, too.
The issue is a splitter, hawks and "Christian Nationalists" on the pro-war side (the latter are thrilled by the prospect of "war in the Holy Land"), "America First" isolationists opposed, proceduralists (sincere and opportunistic alike) among the Democrats and Republicans appalled at the manner in which the action was initiated.
Interesting times. I loathe living in interesting times. Couldn't we have a few decades of dull muddling-though instead?
_____________________
* His present chosen name, changed first from James Donald Bowman as assigned at birth and most recently, informally, styled as "JD Vance."
† A little bird twittered No.
‡ And likewise, a bear.
Whether the United States chose to acknowledge it or not, the Iranian mullahs have been at war with the United States, for decades. The problem with the mullahs having the bomb is that this particular bunch of crackpots believe that they can start the apocalypse by dropping the bomb on Jerusalem. Whether they can or not is immaterial. When someone endeavors to create an event that involves the world, those involved get a vote.
ReplyDeleteIt should be understood, however, that the available intelligence (as publicly known) is inconclusive and contradictory, especially when it comes to actions rather than intent, and actual progress towards the goal.
DeleteI don't think they should have nuclear weapons; I'd be happier if no one did, but that's extraordinarily unlikely. There is nevertheless room for debate on how close they were, and what course of action would most effectively stymie their efforts with minimum collateral harm.
There's also room for debate on a self-declared isolationist President who campaigned on a promise to avoid war taking such an action, just as there was in 1917.
" Only Congress has the power to declare war, and as far as Congress is concerned, only they get to decide to wage warlike activities."
ReplyDeleteLike it or not, other presidents, including Obama, have also launched limited military strikes. The general time frame is 30 days is allowed before the congress gets involved, if memory serves.
And, it was a very limited strike, unlike Israel's expansive assassination campaign. And, it seems to have cooled things down at this point...
I don't care if they all jumped off the same cliff, it's still not how the Constitution says it is supposed to work. And in most cases, Congress either weasel-worded advance permission to make war at the President's discretion (a no-no if done too overtly), or the Administration filed the necessary War Powers paperwork by the deadline afterward.
DeleteI don't give any President a free pass just because the crummy tricks he plays with the letter of the law have also been tried in similar form by his predecessors.