Why hasn’t Congress offically declared war since WWII? Are there international/domestic legal reasons? I believe Congress has approved a number of conflicts, but never declared war sice WWII. Why is this?
Good question. Perhaps simply political? Are vets benefits tied to this? Kinda scary when you look at checks and balances that are supposed to be in the system, but are obviously being ignored.
::sigh:: Checks and balances are not being ignored. All of the military actions that we count as “wars” since WWII were undertaken with explicit Congressional authorization.
The Constitution did not come with a form booklet; there is no set procedure by which Congress declares war. So long as the substance of the constitutional check-and-balance is met - i.e. Congress approves the military action - Congress has effectively declared war and the Constitution has been adhered to.
There have been several smaller actions over the years where Congress has not declared war, such as Grenada, the Dominican Republic, etc. All such actions were (arguably, at least) exigent circumstances under which the President, as Commander-in-chief, had the authority to act without Congressional approval.
As for why, it is an interesting question. In many cases, though not all, war was not declared (instead Congress approved military force “if necessary”) in the hopes that war could be avoided before the military force was actually used. It would be extremely difficult to end a crisis peacefully if you have declared war on the other side.
'Course, this hasn’t really worked; we ended up going to war in each situation anyway. But hey, here’s to trying.
Sua
Well, in my opinion, Korea was to close to the end of WWII, Vietnam was a slow progression for many years before the crap hit the fan.
Afterwards, with the anti war influence still strong, it would be political suicide for any administration to ask congress to declare war. That is why, our leaders have all the bells and whistles to shoot and still say we are not at war.
Alas, after conflicts were started, or inevitable congress allowed them by default. Called them peace-keeping or conflicts. Why not add some legitamacy by calling a war a war?
(note I am not a subversive, anti-american… :::SIGH::
Alas, after conflicts were started, or inevitable congress allowed them by default. Called them peace-keeping or conflicts. Why not add some legitamacy by calling a war a war?
(note I am not a subversive, anti-american… :::SIGH::
No. I welcome correction if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe that any court, anywhere has ever found any legal difference between declared and undeclared war–in terms of veterans benefits, emergency government powers, international law, or anything else.
Paradoxically, as war has become more “total”, it has become less politically correct to wage it against a nation as opposed to a regime. It wouldn’t make sense to declare war “on Iraq” to fight a war which would supposedly liberate Iraq.
Also, as SuaSponte points out, in an age of instant worldwide communication, there is more chance for diplomacy or late devlopments (in the recent case, for example, an Iraqi coup) to ward off conflict at any time until the moment when bombs begin dropping. It makes more sense for Congress to “authorize” the conflict and the President to actually initiate the fighting.
Just a note - the War Department was renamed the Department of Defense in 1947. The US has not fought a declared war since this occurred.
Actually, it’s more the opposite that has happened, wars have become less total since 1945. World War I, World War II, and the American Civil War were all total wars, unlike any war fought by the US since the end of World War II. Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm were all limited wars. While the recent ‘operation’ in Iraq had the goal of removing a sitting regime, and that goal could potentially qualify in some way as a total war, one could say the same thing about Grenada and Panama.
I’m pretty sure it has to do with troop mobilization and manufacturing shifts. The US having a large standing army for quite a while after WWII, along with a thriving military-industrial complex has made it less necessary for Congress to declare war.
The only conflict since WWII that I think warranted a declaration of war was Afghanistan in 2001, and the reason that wasn’t feasible is because the Taliban wasn’t ever recognized as the soverign government of the country. The war there was against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but I think they would have had to declare it against Afghanistan proper, and they didn’t want to do that politically, even if the means and ends were the same.
All other major conflicts (and I mean Korea, Vietnam and Iraq I) were either proxy conflicts in defense of allies where the US wasn’t actually attacked, UN actions, or both. Congressional approval was needed (if only for funding purposes, I think the jury’s still out on whether or not the President could act legally without other approval), but declarations of war were not. The other, smaller actions have historical basis for not needing declarations (I think going back to the Barbary pirates in the early 19th century, but don’t quote me on that), and since they were such minor operations compared to the actual declared wars the argument can be made that they don’t warrant it. The American public have basically allowed for it on the assumption that the President knows what he’s doing and won’t get us in too much of a mess, but I would also say that there can be an argument made that that’s how Vietnam got started and the public grew to have less tolerance for such actions in the aftermath. That probably started changing in the other direction since 9/11, but I doubt it will ever go back to where it had been.
Now Iraq II is tricky. You have the political aspect where they didn’t want to declare war on Iraq since they said it was Saddam they wanted. But the scale of the operation blows Panama, Haiti, Grenada, etc. out of the water. But you also have the administration playing the UN action card, even if the UN said that was bogus. Like I said, tricky.
As a note to the above post, by saying a declaration of war being warranted, I mean that the US was attacked itself, instead of just an ally. In WWII you have Pearl Harbor and Germany declaring war, and in WWI you have the Lusitania and the Germans going back to unlimited sub warfare. No country ever attacked the US in any significant way* between WWII and 9/11 (unless you want to include the Gulf of Tonkin, but that one’s been rather discredited). And I do think you can say that Afghanistan/the Tailban were reponsible for 9/11, instead of saying that it was just Al Qaeda.
*Take “significant way” any way you like, it’s just a throwaway term as far as I’m concerned.
I’ve seen this kind of question a lot, and there’s the premise that before WWII the US declared war before people got shot. Sure, sometimes it did and sometimes it didn’t. The US dispatched troops to Barbary, China, Korea, Samoa, China again, the Phillipines, Cuba, Panama, Nicaragua, Mexico, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Mexico again, Russia, Nicaragua (see a pattern?), and China for old time’s sake before WWII without a declaration of war.
This information is from “The Savage Wars of Peace,” by Max Boot.
The reason to declare war is to mobilize the country. None of the adventures above required that level of effort, so nobody bothered. As far as I know, there’s no difference in pay or benefits between a declared war and an undeclared one.
Hal
Let me rephrase that–they key point, I should have said, is not whether war is “total”, but whether it is fought with an express, articulated goal of “liberating” people in the enemy country. Of our five declared wars, the three in the Nineteenth Century were not “total”, but the two world wars were. In none of the five cases, however, was liberation of the enemy commonly cited as a goal. (During the Spanish-American War we said that we wanted to liberate the Philippines and Cuba, but nobody gave any thought whatsoever to liberating Spaniards.) So we could declare war without troubling our own consciences. Whereas the post-1945 mindset has been more, “Our enemies are suffering under the yoke of (fill in the blank), and if we must go to war, it will be for their own good.” So a declaration of war against an enemy nation doesn’t make much sense.
And you’re right, part of it is just a simple reluctance to say the word, as in the War/Defense makeover. We await the Ministry of Peace.
Just to pick a couple of nits, the US declared war on both Mexico and Spain (Cuba/Philippines).
IMO, the reason that Congress has not been asked for a formal declaration of war since WWII is that the domestic political cost of doing so is simply too high in this day and age, both for Congress and the president. Unless of course the war is a full blown total war, ala WWIII, in which case there wouldn’t be a nation, much less a Congress, of which to ask for a formal declaration of war by the time it mattered.
In the serious limited wars that the US has engaged in post WWII (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and then Iraq again), Congress has been able to hide behind authorizations to the president to do what he felt militarily necessary without having to vote on a formal declaration of war.
<cynic=on>
Because no member of Congress is willing to risk their job (and/or hidden polictical benefits) by actually voting on it. You cannot talk out of the both sides of your mouth when you have explicitly say yea or nay. Congress is wel-versed in all sorts of procedural votes and preliminary votes before actually voting on a bill. That’s why one can say to one group they support a piece of legislation and will vote for it, yet kill it with a procedural vote on something else before the actual vote is taken. (A Senate-House conference committee actually did just this today with Bush’s additional $350 billion tax cut.)
In a Congressional declaration of war it’s not possible to play games before the vote. The very essence of a declaration vote means extraordinary scrutiny by the media and the electorate. No games or missteps allowed.
</cynic>
jklann: I guess it’s a question of semantics, the phrase ‘total war’ is largely a 19th/20th century invention involving the full mobilization of all the resources of a state in terms of technology, industry and the drafting of as many adult males as the war economy can sustain into the armed services to wage war. The Napoleonic Wars were the first real instance of this, when France drafted a relatively huge part of its population to fight its enemies, and they had no choice but to follow suit. Another aspect of total war is the attempt to destroy the economy of ones enemies with no distinction between the civilian an the military (since in a total war civilians feed the military industry), and in this case the American Civil War was one of the first instances of this philosophy brought to fruition.
Blame it all on the French and democracy, I guess;).
I don’t think SuaSponte’s point has been understood. the United States, for all practical intents and purposes, HAS declared war a number of times since WWII, at least as far as the Constitution of the United States is concerned. Congress specifically authorized warfare against Vietnam, Iraq (twice) and Korea. What more of a “declaration of war” do you want?
Hmmm. Let’s see here …
Source: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/dec/dec05.htm#war
Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:H.J.RES.114:
I still stand by my earlier cynic post.
Perhaps the answer to the OP can come by reversing the question- why bother to actually “declare” war? I don’t think ANYONE has “declared” war since WWII. Even when SH flat out invaded Kuwait, he didn’t (AFAIK) bother with a declaration, same with the Iran/Iraq war. It is not just us, it is everyone. Of course, it is always possible that some 3rd rate nation out there “declared war” against some 4th rate nation, but not AFAIK.
Having a full out state of war declared causes many legal issues/problems. Insurance policies become void in some cases. Certain treaties kick in. Duckster also has a point. Etc. Since the Courts have made it clear that as long as Congress gives authorization for a conflict, they don’t need to “declare war”- why bother doing so? We certainly don’t need a draft or full mobilization. We don’t need martial law.
So then, why should the USA bother to “declare war” if it causes problems and is not nessesary? This question is rarley asked except by naifs & laypersons. Do you hear Politicos & Jurists asking it?
semp -sorry, the USA was in no way “attacked” by Imperial Germany in WWI. The Lusitania was a BRITISH ship, carrying illegal war contraband (at the very least the millions of rounds of .303 Enfield “sporting” ammo). Sure, some US citizens died on it- but they were warned. Note that Britian also put up a minefield around Germany- US ships sailing into that would have been sunk just as sure as the Lusitania was. We were conned into that war by a anglophile President & British propaganda. Not that the Imperial Germans were such nice dudes either, mind you.
I totally agree with you, especially since the Lusitania incident was what, a year before war was declared? Americans were on board the ship, however, and that was good enough for the press. But, as I recall, it was Germany reinstituting the unlimited sub warfare that brought the Americans in. In this case it wasn’t an attack, but the threat of a future attack (and a more credible one than Iraq was for Bush) on American interests. I mentioned the Lusitania not because it was an attack on the US per se, but it was perceived as such when it became convenient (or at least today it is, the most anyone on the street can usually come up with for WWI is the Lusitania). That’s the problem with WWI, it’s such a bitch to describe in a handful of words.