Who decides when the US goes to "war"

I know Congress needs to be involved to actually declare war, but there have been a number of times where something was kicked off by presidential authority alone.

If Biden wanted to, could he start a conflict against Russia without congressional approval. If not, what approval would he need? If so, what would be the theoretical limitations to his power and military authority?

I am already assuming people would want some definition of what "conflict" would mean in this hypothetical scenario. So let's say it means Biden authorized US troops at the Ukrainian border and had them launching shells into Russia.

schnurrito ,

Starting point for research: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

originalfrozenbanana ,

Technically only Congress can authorize a war. However, the president can and often will undertake “peacekeeping efforts” or “counterinsurgency operations” or “targeted strikes” without congressional approval.

Whether anyone could stop a president issuing an order is another question. The president is the commander in chief - the military reports to the president, not Congress. If the president tried to order the military to do something unconstitutional (like fight a war that was not authorized by Congress or, idk, overturn an election) then we’d be in a constitutional crisis. In such a crisis, either the military disobeys the president (which is unconstitutional) or the president violates separation of powers (which is unconstitutional)

The American system of government relies on three branches all participating in good faith. As soon as that stops, it all falls apart. Though government is just a series of rules and norms. Rules and norms won’t stop soldiers all the time.

meco03211 ,

A big distinction is that it's unlawful to follow unconstitutional orders. This is to hopefully prevent us ending up like the Nazis and a bunch of people trying to claim "I was just following orders". So it oversimplifies the situation to say "disobeying the president" is unconstitutional. There's nuance.

originalfrozenbanana ,

But that’s the crisis right? The president would almost never say “go violate the constitution.” They would say “go arrest and occupy Congress, THEY violated the constitution “

setsneedtofeed ,
@setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world avatar

The War Powers Act limits use of force by the President to 90 days of military operations. After that, the President’s powers are specifically limited by the act.

Congress still authorizes extended operations, even if they are not declarations of war.

For example, the Authorization for Use of Military Force 2001 authorized military force “against those responsible for the September 11 attacks”, which authorized both operations in Afghanistan and more global force. This has been controversial, as the interpretation of which groups were partially responsible has been broadly interpreted. However it was still a congressionally approved authorization. Congress could, if it so desired, revoke that authorization.

Separately, the invasion of Iraq was authorized by Congress by the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

Corkyskog OP ,

So Biden, or any president could essentially start a conflict/war/whatever between the election and inauguration has been my take away.

I am fascinated by the minutae of hypothetical government actions, because it seems like at this point we are going down a road where they are more likely.

Dagwood222 ,

There's what's legally possible, and what can be done in reality.

No one is going to let Biden unilaterally attack Canada; he'd be impeached AND thrown out under the 25th Amendment five minutes after he announced the attack.

originalfrozenbanana ,

You say that but that isn’t how it would happen.

There would be months or years of prep work, spreading propaganda that Canada was the source of our woes, that they were wronging us. By the time we invaded there’d be just enough “legitimate discourse” about the invasion that the Presidents supporters could claim any effort to stop him was political.

There was a time not long ago where people said you couldn’t do lots of things or you’d get thrown out - then Trump did many of them, even got impeached (twice!) and stayed in office. In practice, these limits are at best inconvenient for a dedicated lunatic.

AA5B ,

either the military disobeys the president (which is unconstitutional) or the president violates separation of powers (which is unconstitutional)

I don’t see how disobeying your boss is unconstitutional. It may be detrimental to your job but it’s not unconstitutional

As other posters have said, there’s lots of wiggle room in who can start military action, starting with the War Powers Act, so no violation of separation of powers either

setsneedtofeed ,
@setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world avatar

I don’t see how disobeying your boss is unconstitutional.

Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives the President authority to command the U.S. military. The military refusing a lawful order is therefore going against the chain of command created by the Constitution.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • kbinchat
  • All magazines
    •