Since antiquity, the rise and fall of civilizations are embedded in war. In the past, kings and ethnic leaders commanded vast armies that waged war on neighboring kingdoms to expand their territories or display their strength and prowess in warfare. Today, the scenario is the same but with highly advanced weaponry of mass destruction that threatens the survival of the entire human race. Nearly all political powers and ruling elite in the world believe that war readiness is a necessity. Hence, the organizing principle of most, if not all is for war, especially in deflecting external attacks on their national borders. The constitutions of all countries reflect this principle and give presidents the power to use military force in the face of an actual or imminent attack on the territorial sovereignty of their countries. In their capacity as the Commanders in Chief of the Armed Forces, presidents and by extension the state, wield considerable control that creates a large power distance between the government and the citizenry (Peters and Woolley). The executive branch of government has a long history of abusing the existing power inequity by infringing on private rights and liberties of individuals. For instance, during World War II, President Roosevelt abused his war powers by sanctioning the disgraceful internment of Japanese-Americans without giving any consideration to their civil liberties (Sidak). Thus, the phrase mentioned above means that the chief motivation for people coming together to protect a particular interest is to develop their capacity for military defense. In this regard, society will select someone to make the appropriate war decisions if they arise, and in this case, the person is the president. If the state were relinquished of its war powers, there would be little if any power distance between the ruling elite and the citizens.
The validity of this statement lies in the tenets of the Constitution and certain Congressional resolutions that bestow war powers on the presidency. Various sections of the US Constitution including its preamble emphasize the need to protect the national borders at all costs from external adversaries (Sidak). The Constitution also recognizes the president as the chief signatory to all military decisions as emphasized in the presidential oath. Therefore, the war powers accorded to the president, including control over the armed forces, both the military and the police force, legitimizes the authority of the state over its people. Whereas the founding fathers anticipated sobriety and impartiality in deliberating war decisions, successive governments have shown a flagrant disregard for peaceful resolutions. Their thirst for warfare borders on sheer arrogance arising from America’s military strength and unique geographical position that makes it inaccessible to enemies by land. As a result, some past presidents manipulated warfare circumstances through omissions in tactical reports released to the public or the Congress with the aim of provoking popular sentiments for war (Sidak). Once a declaration of war is made, the president has the authority to confiscate any private and public property for use in winning a war (Sidak). This fixation with winning has caused the death of millions of US soldiers and civilian casualties over the years without anyone being held accountable. Furthermore, cases of civil rights violations abound such as illegal surveillance by national security agencies, rationing of supplies and public utilities, and media censorship during major confrontations (Sidak). It is these concerns that prompted the adoption of the War Powers Resolution (WPR) in 1973.
The WPR dictates that the president can deploy troops into hostilities under three conditions: a declaration of war by an adversary; a national emergency arising from an attack on US soil, property or armed forces; and, a particular statutory authorization (Valeo). However, the WPR obligates the president to consult with the Congress before the introduction of the military into hostilities and give it periodic reports on the progress of the war (Sofaer). If such consultation is not possible before the war, then the president must submit its initial reports within 48 hours of commencement. Once the Congress approves of such military actions, the president has 60 days within which to win the war and order the withdrawal of US troops from the conflict areas (Valeo; Sofaer). The proponents of the WPR argued that the 60-day window was long enough to instill patriotism in the country, but short enough to prevent civilians from facing domestic sacrifices (Sidak). Nevertheless, the resolution has proved ineffective in curtailing the excesses of presidential war powers due to defiance by presidents, judicial abstention, and congressional irresolution (Ely). US presidents ignore the tenets of the WPR on the basis that it was ratified without the signature of the president at the time – Nixon. President Nixon vetoed the resolution claiming that it could undermine foreign policy by preventing the US from acting decisively during an international crisis (Peters and Woolley). As a result, US allies would lose confidence in the ability of the US to assist them while adversaries would disregard the long-standing deterrent posture of the country during global crises. Thus, presidents ignore the consultation premise and repeatedly refuse to file a “hostilities” report (Ely).
Moreover, the Congress has been reluctant to call the president on such violations or make decisions on whether to go to war or not. Such Congressional indecision stems from the need to avoid personal accountability that could hinder their political ambitions. For instance, while the Congress did not publicly declare war on Vietnam, it knowingly provided the necessary funds and logistical supports for the war (Sofaer). The Congress is supposed to represent the views of the people. By absconding its responsibilities, it leaves the citizens with no avenue to exercise their political rights or contribute to national issues. Besides, the recent attacks on US soil such as the 9/11 terrorist incident instilled fear in the populace regarding the safety of their borders. Where the dominant perception in the country is fear, people are likely to follow the government blindly into notions of a ‘just war’ without evaluating the consequences of such actions. While the government issued a verbal apology to the masses for the death of numerous civilian casualties, it does not erase their lack of consideration for diplomacy.
The war powers of the president also persist due to the existence of a military-industrial complex. The military economy is an enormous and booming business involving influential private contractors with ties to the political elite. Every year, the government allocates billions to the department of defense for building hi-tech weapons including nuclear armament in preparation for war. If warfare is not forthcoming, then one is instigated to make use of the weapons and develop more arms. This cycle creates a self-perpetuating industry that enriches a few wealthy individuals ate the cost of human lives. The lopsided budgetary allocations entrench the imbalance of power between the state and its people. From the assessment presented above, the validity of the statement regarding war powers is valid given the legitimacy it receives from the principles of law and public acceptance.
In conclusion, presidential war powers lie in the constitutional tenets that give the government undue authority to deploy the Armed Forces into hostilities. The emphasis on combating adversaries’ at all costs’ create a gross power imbalance between the government and the citizens. Therefore, the statement is valid as it depicts the face of most contemporary societies.
Works Cited
Ely, John H. "Suppose Congress Wanted a War Powers Act That Worked." Columbia Law Review 88.7 (1988): 1379-1431. Web. 4 Mar. 2016. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1122735>.
Peters, Gerhard, and John T. Woolley. "Richard Nixon: Veto of the War Powers Resolution." The American Presidency Project. N.p., 24 Oct. 1973. Web. 3 Mar. 2016. <http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=4021>.
Sidak, J. G. "To Declare War." Duke Law Journal 41.1 (1991): 27-121. Web. 4 Mar. 2016. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1372700>.
Sofaer, Abraham D. "John Ely, War, And Responsibility." Stanford Law Review 57 (2004): 785-791. Print.
Valeo, Francis R. "War Powers Resolution." The Avalon Project. Yale Law School, n.d. Web. 3 Mar. 2016. <avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp>.
