Hacker Neue

Preferences
righthand parent
It’s not misleading.

War is impossible for Congress to disapprove. You cannot pretend that option is even on the table when a Potus has expanded power to push the country into a war; how can congress disapprove an ongoing conflict in a country that prides itself on using military force?

nozzlegear
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question, but I think most Americans are weary of war and don't want to get involved in another – even if we're proud of our military forces. I would expect my senators to vote against approving extended involvement in an Iran conflict or war past 60 days. Furthermore, I don't think it's impossible for Congress to disapprove anymore with how polarized our politics are. Certainly any kind of boots-on-the-ground action is going to be anathema to both parties as well.
righthand OP
I guess my larger point is how can Congress vote down a war that started 60 days ago and has a goal of lasting longer than 60 days? Even entertaining the idea they vote to pull troops out after a conflict, does an authoritarian, overpowered, executive branch comply?
nozzlegear
That's an excellent question, I don't have an answer for it. I can easily see Trump and his admin ignoring a vote to withdraw from the Iranian conflict. It's not hard to imagine him justifying it with an all-caps post on Truth Social claiming "the American people have no confidence in our Congress" or something like that. In an ideal American government, we would expect the Secretary of Defense to step in and follow congressional orders by commanding the military to withdraw – but we know that Hegseth will unequivocally side with Trump.

That would be a Constitutional crisis.

In Bob Woodward's books Rage, Peril, and War, he reported that General Mark Milley, Trump's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during his first presidency, made what he called an "oath" with the other service chiefs to prevent Trump from starting a war with Iran during his final days in office, after January 6th, 2021. Technically, the CJCS and officers are advisors only and have no actual control of the military, but Milley's plan was to exploit gaps between what's legal and what happens in reality. He knew that any major military actions had to come through him, and if he said "no," it would gum up the works even if it's not legal.

The CJCS and their officers all take an oath to the Constitution, not the president; the same is true for all officers and enlisted personnel in the military. We can only hope they'd honor that oath.

righthand OP
Yes the “generals/chiefs will help prevent this” stuff always makes me feel a little better but here we are bombs dropped, tensions escalating.
zamadatix
I get what you're trying to argue but the point above was in the opposite direction - that congress has continually approved military action for what are (obviously) wars in all but name many times since 1942.

Congress is not-really-declaring-war even more than prior centuries, independent from how the presidents (particularly the latest in this case) also totally-aren't-declaring-war more without congress often than ever before.

PaulDavisThe1st
> how can congress disapprove an ongoing conflict

by voting. It's that simple.

Of course, it is far from clear what would happen if they did so vote.

This item has no comments currently.