The conversation concerning Syria in recent days has focused on the President withdrawing U.S. troops from the northern border zones with Turkey and functionally leaving the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which are headed by Syrian Kurds under the Democratic Union Party (PYD) and their military branch the YPG or People's Protection Units, to fend for themselves. This was regarded by pundits and politicians alike a disastrous move and the abandonment of an ally. Bipartisan resistance of this magnitude is likely not something President Trump expected when he initially ceded territory to Turkish troops and the Russian agents in the area of operations. However, there is little Congress can do as the justification of the American intervention into Syria strained Constitutional limits at the time, and also re-solidified decades of Executive power grabbing from the reins of the Legislature.
The power to declare war though enumerated in Article I of the Constitution has been the de facto executive function since before the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Small wars like the interventions of Marines in China during the Boxer Rebellion, Barbary Pirate raids, and others illustrate this. Korea, though authorized by United Nations Security Council, was still considered a "Police Action" by Truman, and was never truly a declared war. Vietnam also falls into the realm of a war without declaration, with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and dubious circumstances clouding the early days of the war. However, in 1973 under Nixon, Congress recognized the power of the Legislature was being given away to the President with little to show for it, along with rising domestic unrest, and negative returns in terms of money spent on the war. Hence, the two provisions in the resolution, consultation with Congress if not a national emergency, and a sixty day clock for extensions (Jentleson 175). This of course has been trampled to death in the intervening years. In our generation the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and now Syria have all be justified as both just and constitutional without a declaration of war. Much of that relied on the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001 in retaliation for September 11th, 2001 and the AUMF of 2002 prior to the invasion of Iraq. The Clinton Administration of course gets to join in this cadre of imperial presidencies by using cruise missiles to target weapons facilities in Iraq while Saddam Hussein was still in power.
During the Obama Administration there was certainly backlash in the advocacy for engaging in conflict. Senator Rand Paul called for a return to congressional mandate on war since his election, citing federalist founders like James Madison and then President Obama's own campaign promises. Bruce Ackerman, a professor of law and political science leveled a much more stinging criticism of the executive's legitimization of intervention in Libya, declaring that future presidents may be unhindered in aggressive behaviors using the Bush-era rationale. When President Obama's escalation into Syria was challenged by House Resolution 55 in 2015 the vote outcome was astounding. An overwhelming number of Republicans voted it down along with a third of the Democrats also casting a 'nay' vote. What may explain this behavior? Possibly, keeping the conflict prolonged would damage the chances of a Democrat being elected president in 2016. Conversely, keeping it active would allow for a Republican candidate to claim the glory for eliminating ISIS, and providing stability to the region.
Perhaps more insidious, is the notion of an unconstrained presidency, to which the the sidestepping of Congress is the ultimate intent. In an era of limited unified government, the legislative branch has produced less and less compromise, and has been characterized by inaction. Thus a logical step for party leaders would be to rally behind their executive to maintain power, particularly in the case of controversial policy. Which is the odd part about this instance with our current president, there is backlash against him for disengaging from a conflict. This is unprecedented, but also may be the push many have sought to wrest executive use of force altogether. Both politically unpopular, and strategically shortsighted, Congress is limited in its ability to react in this conflict. Short of a full scale invasion of Syria and an accompanied declaration of war, sanctions are the only recourse Congress has.
Jentleson's book is a primer for Dr. Peter Harris' U.S. Foreign Policy class here at Colorado State, there is a reserve copy at the library.
Jentleson, B. W. (2014). American foreign policy: the dynamics of choice in the 21st century. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
The power to declare war though enumerated in Article I of the Constitution has been the de facto executive function since before the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Small wars like the interventions of Marines in China during the Boxer Rebellion, Barbary Pirate raids, and others illustrate this. Korea, though authorized by United Nations Security Council, was still considered a "Police Action" by Truman, and was never truly a declared war. Vietnam also falls into the realm of a war without declaration, with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and dubious circumstances clouding the early days of the war. However, in 1973 under Nixon, Congress recognized the power of the Legislature was being given away to the President with little to show for it, along with rising domestic unrest, and negative returns in terms of money spent on the war. Hence, the two provisions in the resolution, consultation with Congress if not a national emergency, and a sixty day clock for extensions (Jentleson 175). This of course has been trampled to death in the intervening years. In our generation the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and now Syria have all be justified as both just and constitutional without a declaration of war. Much of that relied on the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001 in retaliation for September 11th, 2001 and the AUMF of 2002 prior to the invasion of Iraq. The Clinton Administration of course gets to join in this cadre of imperial presidencies by using cruise missiles to target weapons facilities in Iraq while Saddam Hussein was still in power.
During the Obama Administration there was certainly backlash in the advocacy for engaging in conflict. Senator Rand Paul called for a return to congressional mandate on war since his election, citing federalist founders like James Madison and then President Obama's own campaign promises. Bruce Ackerman, a professor of law and political science leveled a much more stinging criticism of the executive's legitimization of intervention in Libya, declaring that future presidents may be unhindered in aggressive behaviors using the Bush-era rationale. When President Obama's escalation into Syria was challenged by House Resolution 55 in 2015 the vote outcome was astounding. An overwhelming number of Republicans voted it down along with a third of the Democrats also casting a 'nay' vote. What may explain this behavior? Possibly, keeping the conflict prolonged would damage the chances of a Democrat being elected president in 2016. Conversely, keeping it active would allow for a Republican candidate to claim the glory for eliminating ISIS, and providing stability to the region.
Votes cast by party affiliation for H.Con.Res 55 (2015), solid blocks represent 'Yea' votes while empty blocks are 'Nay'
Perhaps more insidious, is the notion of an unconstrained presidency, to which the the sidestepping of Congress is the ultimate intent. In an era of limited unified government, the legislative branch has produced less and less compromise, and has been characterized by inaction. Thus a logical step for party leaders would be to rally behind their executive to maintain power, particularly in the case of controversial policy. Which is the odd part about this instance with our current president, there is backlash against him for disengaging from a conflict. This is unprecedented, but also may be the push many have sought to wrest executive use of force altogether. Both politically unpopular, and strategically shortsighted, Congress is limited in its ability to react in this conflict. Short of a full scale invasion of Syria and an accompanied declaration of war, sanctions are the only recourse Congress has.
Jentleson's book is a primer for Dr. Peter Harris' U.S. Foreign Policy class here at Colorado State, there is a reserve copy at the library.
Jentleson, B. W. (2014). American foreign policy: the dynamics of choice in the 21st century. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
I appreciate your post detailing the role of Congress in U.S. foreign policy. I enjoyed how you used the current situation in Syria as example of this role, as well as how you also used the examples of Libya, Vietnam, etc. to make your point about how the U.S. presidents have had imperialist like powers to basically wage war without the approval of Congress. With that being said, I would have to agree with you that it is quite ridiculous how much our presidents have abused this power. I think you did an excellent job describing how presidents all the way from Cold War era to Obama have all acted in a similar fashion when it comes to foreign policy. Specifically how Clinton, Bush, and Obama have all escalated U.S. military force in different regions across the globe. Even though Obama claimed he was going to deescalate the situation in the Middle East, he continued to have hawkish foreign policies that contributed to the destabilization in countries such as Libya and Syria
ReplyDeleteThis was a very interesting post. I really liked that you used history and actions of past presidents to explain why this is an issue. Syria is a very hot topic across the country. We are actually discussing this in another one of my political science classes, and it is really interesting to see what other Presidents have thought about it and how they have acted.
ReplyDeleteGreat job! I like how you referenced other historical scenarios in which the president used their power to declare war. The fact that the president, just one singular person, is granted such an important power that can affect so many lives is fascinating to me. I understand the justification for all the president’s other powers, but am very surprised that this one isn’t given to Congress to debate and decide. I wonder that as time goes on and the United States gets involved in more wars, if this power will be shifted to Congress.
ReplyDeleteReally good job on your blog. I think it was very interesting and to the point with the information being presented. Good job discussing and making it clear the role of Congress as well as the abuse of power from presidents.
ReplyDeleteReally great job discussing this topic. I am a history major so I was drawn to what you had to say about past wars. That is something that our nation agrees upon. Despite Congress not declaring war, they are still wars. Congress creating an official declaration of war would be historical.
ReplyDelete