Just to make sure that everyone knows who has the power TO MAKE WAR in the US as opposed to the power TO DECLARE WAR, I will explain the present set up.
The chain of command runs from the president/commander in chief to the Secretary of Defense and from him to the combatant commanders at EUCOM, CENTCOM, Strategic Command, etc. These combatant commands are really just headquarters designed to exercise operational control over forces raised by the service departments; Army, Navy, Air Force and provided to the combatant commands for conduct of operations.
People and institutions NOT in the chain of command; the vice president, the CIA, State Department, Congress, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (an advisory body), the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the head military advisor).
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 gives the president/commander in chief 60 days of unfettered authority to take military action before a justifying report to Congress is required. If the Congress wanted to call a halt to some military action after that its most effective tools would be de-funding the operation or impeachment. What is the chance that either of these things would happen? I don't recall either of those things happening in the past.
With regard to nuclear war, the president/commander in chief has unlimited power to launch an attack, presumably in retaliation,
In fact a combination of political forces that overcomes the president/commander in chief's resistance can take the US to war without congressional action.
Do you really like this set up? pl
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Chiefs_of_Staff
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
"I am surprised Putin did not demand to return Alaska." http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/10/is-first-secret-bloody-clash-between.html
Posted by: Anna | 07 October 2016 at 05:18 PM
Thank you. I would love if that story were true. The Bulletin article you offer seems seems to doubt it.For others interested, the story is here: http://www.stripes.com/news/special-reports/features/cold-war-missileers-refute-okinawa-near-launch-1.385439
Posted by: erichwwl | 07 October 2016 at 05:51 PM
Finally a clear article that Senators can read. But he buries his point: When America achieves energy independence, then we'll be able to stop wars for the sake of the Middle East. Strategically critical.
Posted by: Imagine | 07 October 2016 at 05:59 PM
hmmm. Wonder were the commander in chief fits in this theoretical authority?
" One proposed way to get around the White House’s long-standing objection to striking the Assad regime without a U.N. Security Council resolution would be to carry out the strikes covertly and without public acknowledgment, the official said."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2016/10/04/obama-administration-considering-strikes-on-assad-again/
Posted by: erichwwl | 07 October 2016 at 06:12 PM
that attack took place without a strong uproar domestically . . . seems puzzling to say the least.
The antiwar movement is weaker than it was. Part of the reason for that is that the media have turned entirely towards war.
I wrote my senators and Congresswoman at the time via the handy tiny boxes on their web sites. No reply yet.
Posted by: Walker | 07 October 2016 at 07:35 PM
Imagine,
Don't forget the Israeli angle, that we the U.S. are their b*eatch and our White House, Congress, State and the CIA bowing and scraping and doing their Israeli bidding at their Israeli beckon hegemonic call, like a bunch of Harlequin court jesters with their face-paint and floppy printed caps before their master.
I'm tired of seeing U.S. kids dying for some other nation's idiocy, all because of a bunch of spineless U.S. politicians who IMO belong in U.S. prison cells for their betrayal of trust.
Posted by: J | 08 October 2016 at 04:33 AM
gosh it is hard to read that typeface...
Posted by: joe | 08 October 2016 at 09:34 AM
I'm not sure how popular some of these governments are. See Ukraine, Libya, Iraq, &c.
Posted by: Generalfeldmarschall von Hindenburg | 08 October 2016 at 02:38 PM
I still can't get my head around this: The US is supporting the most fanatical elements of an Arab society - pretty much openly - and yet people are all worked up about Russia. I mean...who the heck believes that Trump is a Russian mole? It's right out of Idiocracy.
I blame the media gleischaltung of the 90s (Oh- I'm sorry- that was 'deregulation' wasn't it? Good for competition, that's right) that was pushed by the first Clinton administration. The reign of George II only exacerbated it.
It's really crazy that we have a plethora of well informed alternate sources online, but people are still getting their 'guidance' from CNN, Fox and the rest and the phony 'liberal/conservative' Punch and Judy show. If someone cited this blog on MSNBC, Racheal Maddow would screech about 'conspiracy theory'.
Posted by: Generalfeldmarschall von Hindenburg | 08 October 2016 at 02:51 PM
Generalfeldmarschall von Hindenburg,
Many Clintonite Leaders and their MSM spokesfolk sell it. And their Clintonite followers believe it.
Posted by: different clue | 08 October 2016 at 05:09 PM
Or worse, the qualifications for elected congressional office have eroded such that basic competencies in history, miltary history, geography, global economics etc let alone the law, are of no interest to the ALEC purses whose sole requirement is one who will pass pre-written legislative bills after the required wine, dine, and PAC donation, and similar expectations of the meek and eunich public in tow. In election campaigns we rarely see disclosure or even argument on the basis of fundamental qualifications and lack thereof for the office. In other words, who is vetting the people sitting on the committees supposedly vetting the executive and administrative appointments?
Posted by: trinlae | 09 October 2016 at 02:57 AM