What Ought to be the Presidents War Power?

[David Octavius]

Not what it is but what - in your opinion - it ought to be. Keep in mind democrats that though a republican (which he is in name only) is in power now it could also happen to a Democrat (see LBJ), and republicans keep the reverse in mind too. With this in mind lets put the current conflict a side for a moment, what ought to be the powers and limits of a presidents power?

For instance, I am firm believer that there cannot be two captains on a ship, there must be one person as the end all accountable one when it comes to the TACTICS and STRATEGIES on the battlefield. However, when it comes to the OBJECTIVES - the the tactics and strategies seek to achieve - of the conflict, it ought to be shared between the President and the Congress, specifically the Senate.

I believe this because as Commander, the President may be too caught up or emotionally and egotistically invested in the conflict to have a clear and unbiased judgment as to the success of the war and achieving its objectives. Its like asking a person to rate their own job performance, it is very difficult for them to see their own defects. Having a body independent of the tactics is essential to act as a check to advise the President on the objectives of the war or to act as a check if the President has no clear way of winning.

Of course the President must be given a reasonable amount of time but here is where it is a must that all wars must have a clear and unambiguous objective from the onset. Begging pardon for violating my own rule here but one reason we are in the shit right now in Iraq is because our current President did not lay out clear objectives, so now we are searching - 4 years later - to define what success means! Strange indeed!

The President ought to have control over the tactics and strategies including troop deployments, levels and the like and how to implement it. However, the Senate ought to advise and have some control over defining the objectives before war is brought upon and should check the President to ensure he/she is staying to the goals and if not, propose measures to either support the President or to - with the approval of the House - de-fund the war and end it there.

This does not solve all issues I know but it does force our government to be more transparent and accountable at all levels. We must know what we are getting into and what we intend to get out of it. No person or entity, be they the President or Congress, ought to have complete control over the most important matter of humanity - war

[Diamond Cross]

I believe he shouldn't be able to use troops without accountability and without official declarations of war.

[7960]

I believe if something is serious enough to send troops that we should figure out how many we need, send twice that amount, kill anything that opposes us, and :gtfo:.

[Kytro]

The president should set general policy, the generals should set strategy.

[RMNIXON]

Lets not confuse strategy with goals and objectives. Those should be clear from the start. The means to acomplish those goals or how much will, men, and firepower are not. If the Irtaq conflict were over within two years you would here far less of this monday morning quarterback talk of no clear goals and objectives. They have always been clear in the case of Iraq. Remove the old government, remove any WMD found, and remain until the elected government is stable and can protect itself. Not being happy with tactics and a lack of progress is not the same as not having clear goals. Not having timetables is not the same as not having clear goals. Do you think we had such detailed plans concerning the end of WWII in 1941? That it would end when we dropped an atomic bomb in 1945? No way.

I like the current war powers, that the Congress preserves a ballance of power and States rights. This is not the same as trying to micromanage conflict and demanding timetable results after the fact.

[Kytro]

Let me clarify my stance:

1) Executive sets the policy (overall objectives etc)

2) Generals detail exactly what they believe they need too accomplish those goals

3) Congress is asked for the funding required

If all 3 do not happen, then the conflict or change inplans shouldn't go ahead.

The president shouldn't be setting troop numbers

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

They have always been clear in the case of Iraq. Remove the old government, remove any WMD found, and remain until the elected government is stable and can protect itself.

Umm no, that is Monday morning quarterbacking. Their real goal - which they never told the American people until it was found out later - was to spread democracy throughout the middle east starting with Iraq, thus is the Neo-Con ideology they followed.

All that stuff you are talking about was just talking points and excuses to get in there. Do you seriously believe the American people and the world at large would of agreed with their actual goals had they stated it in the beginning? A war under those pretenses is not a just war, because it was fought and planned as just one stopping ground in our greater war to democratize the Mid East. That is why there was very little planning on what to do post war, they had their eyes set on Iran and Syria before the dust settled in Iraq. We were told one thing and they did an entirely new thing and it back fired, now - four years later - our goals have indeed shifted as well as it should.

Originally Posted by KYTRO

Let me clarify my stance:

1) Executive sets the policy (overall objectives etc)

2) Generals detail exactly what they believe they need too accomplish those goals

3) Congress is asked for the funding required

If all 3 do not happen, then the conflict or change inplans shouldn't go ahead.

The president shouldn't be setting troop numbers

Kytro,

The above is why the President should not be the only one to state objectives, in my opinion its a conflict of interest to have the same person who is involved in the business of war to state its objectives. It should be a joint agreement with the Senate unless extreme circumstances deem that immediate action is necessary

The President ought to have the power to shape the direction of war the way he/she see's fit in order to fulfill the objectives which means having control of troop levels so that he/she has all the resources necessary

If the President is failing then the congress can stop the war by cutting off funds

[Diesel66]

anything and everything (that follows our laws) in the field of war set by Congress.

He has the right to deploy troops for a short time before getting permission.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

He has the right to deploy troops for a short time before getting permission.

This is where I have a huge issue, that "right" wasn't even in the constitution....

"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States...."

Who was supposed to call them into service? Congress

But the war powers act - which ironically was supposed to limit the war power of the President - actually legitimized the use of troops without authorization and made the President stronger.

The founders didn't want the same entity to be able to raise, arm and control the armed forces in both peace time and war, that could lead to tyranny and I agree with that - which is why the war powers act needs some serious revision because it gives the President control of our forces in peace time and war, something that no republic should allow.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

This is where I have a huge issue, that "right" wasn't even in the constitution....

"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States...."

The federal forces (active, guard and reserve) are already in "actual service of the US", so he has the right to command them

Who was supposed to call them into service? Congress

not really. Constitution has a big error since it never actually if Congress HAS to give permission before any deployment

[Dumpy Dooby]

I don't think we should have a standing military ready and waiting for a president to deploy. It's a huge waste of money in this day and age.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I don't think we should have a standing military ready and waiting for a president to deploy. It's a huge waste of money in this day and age.

multiply our current problems with the NG and Reserves by 10.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

What it ought to be is whatever the people say it should be at the time. The power struggle between Congress controlling the money and the President controlling the strategy works out pretty well, IMO.

This business now of a run away president unaccountable to Congress is nonsense. If Congress would actually grow some balls and use the power of the purse, the President could be held accountable just fine.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

But the war powers act - which ironically was supposed to limit the war power of the President - actually legitimized the use of troops without authorization and made the President stronger.

Why do you say that? IMO, if anything, it decreases his powers by providing a basis for impeachment if he violates it.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

multiply our current problems with the NG and Reserves by 10.

Is that an arbitrary factor?

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Is that an arbitrary factor?

Estimated number of NG/Reserve troops being used for active duty today.

And total number of active duty troops used to fight Iraq and Afghanistan plus the other important missions.

[Thorgrim]

The president should have full war powers to command the military...under codes given by Congress in conduct

ONLY IF there is a declared state of war against specific groups that has a time-table and needs re-authorization when that runs out