Reference no: EM131645199 , Length: 4

You helped me out with a forum post of this topic but I need two responses for other students.

The Question Was: discuss the issue of how American military forces should be employed in conflict abroad. Is it strictly the president's call?

What is Congress's role? Are the restrictions in the War Powers Resolution of 1973 realistic? How should this issue be resolved? Please use examples in your post.

POST 1

The President has the power to wage war, which means the act of war. He is given the power to control the troops. What does this mean? He has the authority to decide how many military troops are needed for deployment and where they will be stationed. Article II, section 2 of the Constitution of the United States specifies the duties and responsibilities of the President pertaining to the military. It states that "the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, when called into actual service of the United States" (Modules: Student View, p.5).

Congress

In accordance with Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the Unites States, Congress has the power to declare war. Additionally, they can determine the duration of the war by declaring how long they will fund it. (Modules: Student View, p.3)

Is the restriction in the War Powers Resolution of 1973 realistic?

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 states that in the case the President deploys troops without Congress declaring war, the President has to notify them of any military movement within 48 hours. It also says that troops must be removed within 60 days, unless Congress approves a longer period.

Even though the Constitution specifically states the power of the President and Congress when it comes to war, it is a very controversial topic among them. This debate began during the Vietnam War when Congress presented the War Powers Resolution to President Nixon. He did not agree with it and in return vetoed it.

Congress passed it even though the President disagreed. Some are still against it. Robert F. Turner from Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law Vol. 45 states that "the 1973 War Powers Resolution was a fraud upon the American people, portrayed as a legislative fix to fix the problem of "imperial presidents...Sadly, this and other legislative intrusions upon the constitutional authority of the president contributed to the loss of millions of lives in places like Cambodia, Afghanistan, Angola, and Central America" (Turner, 2012).

He goes on to say that the limitations on the President led to the 9/11 attacks, encouraging Osama bin Laden to attack the United States due to the lack of power from the President as the Intelligence team was unable to share information that could have avoided the terrorist attacks (Turner, 2012).

Is the restriction in the War Powers Resolution realistic?

In my opinion, the War Powers Resolution was created due to some Presidents abusing their power. Do I think it is realistic? I am not too familiar with all the facts, but from what I have read, the War Power Resolution hinders the President to make decisions in some cases as mentioned above. How can we solve the problem? Team work, Congress needs to have the President's back just as much as the President needs to have Congress' back. They need to work together and sometimes agree to disagree. What are your opinions?

POST 2

In the past, there has been a lot of issues between Congress and the Presidents concerning deploying troops without Congress's approval. According to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the President may make a decision to send troops abroad in defense but must notify Congress within forty eight hours of the employment and they must be removed after 60 days if Congress does not agree with the decision. These rules have not always been followed and have not always been agreed with.

Why should the president skip over Congress's approval to send troops abroad when they are needed? One of the reasons I believe this should be the case is that if there is an emergency and troops are needed, it takes approximately forty eight to seventy two hours for the troops to arrive in that conflicted country.

This is a lot of time when there are innocent people at risk and we shouldn't have to delay the assistance to make sure Congress is filled in on the details and feels okay with the decision. For example, troops were just sent back to Afghanistan and Iraq to assist with the peoples needs of protection from ISIS and Taliban forces. These forces are killing innocent civilians to push out the troops and destroy the laws that have been placed for the protection of the country.

One way to resolve these issues would be starting with the President. If the President had more military background, then Congress may feel that he is more able to make these decisions with the strategics of military use and knowledge of how best the situation could be handled.

In conclusion, I think that the rules and laws set up should be abided by because they were set for a reason. I know that I do not know all the details of how these things work or why they are done the way they are. The people who are put in office do have a better understanding of these things and I am sure they have a reason on why they want things the way they are. This is just what I believe from the information I am provided.