Introduction
The
last few decades have seen Congress essentially relinquish its powers to
declare war to the Executive branch of government. This has led to a situation where
it has become difficult to ensure that executive war powers have the necessary
checks required to bring about more responsible practices (Goldsmith, 2012, p. 18). The declaration of war is an
action that cannot be undertaken lightly because it involves considerable use
of national resources, as well as armed personnel. It is also a situation where
there has to be careful deliberation and thinking about national interests in
order to ensure that there is the careful use of the armed forces. Therefore,
this paper argues that it is essential that executive war powers should be
significantly reduced and that these powers are returned to Congress. It
provides a diverse number of reasons why Congress has to be the custodian of
war powers because it is through its oversight that it will be possible for
these powers to be used more effectively without abuse.
Potential of Overreach
Reining
in executive war powers is critical in preventing overreach. This is especially
considering that the United States has, since 2001 been involved in conflicts
in the Middle East. The results of these wars have not been what were expected
because in the end, the objectives that were set were not achieved. One of the
most significant conflicts that the United States initiated using the executive
war powers was the war in Iraq. A considerable number of servicemen and women
ended up losing their lives while other were physically and mentally scarred
during the conflict. These afflictions cannot be underestimated because they
show that despite the country having been willing to undertake the achievement
of national security, the end result was that it ended up creating more enemies
than it had before. Furthermore, the country was forced into a situation where
it invaded Iraq under false pretenses (Rabkin, 2004, p. 2); resulting in the destruction of a fairly stable
state, and the instigation of a sectarian conflict that still plagues Iraq to
this day. If executive war powers are not reined in as soon as possible, it is
likely that the United States could find itself in another war, only this time;
it will not be able to extract itself easily. One of the most likely conflicts
that could take place if executive powers are left as they are is a war with
North Korea, which is a country that has greater military capabilities than
both Afghanistan and Iraq. If such a conflict were to take place, it would not
only be prolonged, but it would also lead to the considerable loss of life for
both Americans and its allies Japan and South Korea. The last would especially
be negatively affected because of their close proximity to the conflict. Such a
conflict, while the United States is still actively involved in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia, could lead to a level of overreach from which
the country might not recover.
Protecting National Interests
The
need to protect national interests should be a motivator towards ensuring that
executive war powers are reined in. One of the biggest results of the wars that
the United States has conducted in the twenty first century is that it has led
to a loss of credibility for the country in some regions of the world. The
United States has come to be viewed as an imperialistic power, which has the intention
of enforcing its will on those countries that do not wish to follow its lead. A
consequence of this perception has been that there are an increasing number of
countries, such as Russia and China, which are essentially seeking to break
away from the American-led world order and to instead embrace one of their own
making (Ikenberry, 2013). It has therefore become essential for the executive
war powers to be curtailed and brought under the direct oversight of Congress
in order to make sure that the looming threat of war at any time does not shake
the confidence of those countries that have followed the American lead for
decades. It will be necessary to make sure that checks are placed on the
executive’s ability to unilaterally declare war, especially in instances where
such declarations could end up making the national interest to suffer rather
than being advanced. An example of such a situation is that of Iraq where
American intervention essentially created an opening for Iranian influence to
become established in the country.
Allowing Other States to find their own Way
One
of the most fundamental objectives of reining in executive war powers is the
need to allow other states to find their own way. The United States, despite
its objective to promote democracy across the world, is not obligated to get
involved in all the internal conflicts that take place in the world. Instead, it
is important that it gives space to conflicting countries to undertake their
own initiatives towards the achievement of stability and democracy. America
should look to its past as an inspiration that whatever conflicts take place in
the world, they will eventually give way to political establishments where
individuals’ human rights are observed. The American Civil War, despite its
brutality, eventually ended and both sides of the conflict ended up coming
together to form the United States as it is today (Weingast, 1998). The experiences of the Civil War ensured that
the country would eventually grow into an industrial, military, and global
political power in the twentieth century, with democratic institutions being
its foundation. Other countries in the world should be allowed to develop in a
similar way because imposed democracy tends to have the negative effect of not
working as it should. Instead, because the people on whom it has been imposed,
because they do not understand its full value, end up forgetting its
importance. In a conflict such as the one taking place in Syria, the United
States should have stayed out, and encouraged its allies in the region to do
the same. Perhaps if the United States had not chosen to supply the rebels with
weapons, the conflict would not have gotten out of hand, and led to the deaths
of hundreds of thousands of Syrians. Instead, both sides of the Syrian conflict
would have likely come together for the sake of achieving national unity
through ending the civil war.
Potential of Creating More Enemies
As
the most powerful country in the world, the United States has numerous enemies,
including those states that are against its dominance. A consequence is that
whenever the United States gets involved in a new conflict, these enemies get
the fodder with which to argue their case that the country is an aggressive
power that seeks to ensure that it controls other countries. Those countries that
see the United States as a potential threat then take measures aimed at
reducing the risk of a conflict with it through undertaking considerable
military modernization and allying themselves with other powerful countries
such as China and Russia. An example of a country that has adopted a stance
similar to that described has been the Philippines under President Rodrigo
Duterte, who has essentially adopted a hostile attitude towards the United
States, despite his country having been an ally for decades (Heydarian, 2017). With these circumstances serving as a
background, reining in executive war powers can be a critical factor in
ensuring that the potential of creating more enemies is significantly reduced.
Instead, it will be possible to ensure that there is the advancement of
American national interests through non-military means. The interventionist
policies of the United States have done it more harm than good, and this is
especially considering that most of these interventions have been ordered by
the executive (Goldsmith, 2012, p. 51). It is therefore important
that executive war power is reined in so that diplomatic means can be used in
achieving national interests. Thus, when other countries see the United States
leading by example, it is likely that they will be more willing to negotiate.
Reducing Incidents of Disastrous Conflicts
Executive
war powers have to be reined in to ensure that there is the prevention of
conflicts that end up having disastrous results for the United States. The
original decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was justified by the executive as
having been a reaction to Iraq’s having weapons of mass destruction as well as
collaborating with Al Qaeda. The reality was that the Baathist regime in Iraq
had ensured that Al Qaeda was kept at bay from the country and it was only
after the American invasion and the fall of this regime that Al Qaeda gained a
foothold. Al Qaeda in Iraq, which has in recent years become the Islamic State
of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) can be considered one of the biggest threats to the
United States today. Its presence came about because of the failure of American
military interventionist policies in the Middle East. The failure of military
intervention can be laid on the door of the executive branch of government,
because it can arbitrarily declare war without necessarily consulting Congress (Rabkin, 2004, p. 47). The powers of this branch of government have to
be significantly curtailed because to leave it as it is puts the entire nation
in danger. Only Congress should have the power to declare war, and it is
essential that this part of the constitution is enforced because the President
can end up taking advantage of his war powers to undertake wars that have
disastrous results for not only the United States, but its allies as well.
Exploring of other Avenues to Protect
National Interests
The
biggest reason that is often given by presidents when they use executive war
powers is that they are protecting American national interests. A considerable
number of wars since Pearl Harbor have been waged by the United States because
of this reason, and while for the most part it has been essential in the
advancement of national interests, it has also led to considerable damage in
some parts of the world. In the contemporary world, it is essential to ensure
that avenues other than war are used to protect national interests. However, in
order to achieve this objective, it is important that executive war powers are
removed from the presidency and the power to declare war be given only to
Congress. Congress, because of its deliberative role before making such
critical decisions, has the ability to better measure those circumstances that
require a military response. However, other avenues, such as the imposition of
sanctions, undertaking bilateral relations, and the use of American soft power
such as its economic might, could go a long way towards the achievement of its
goals. Such initiatives could significantly reduce tensions with other
countries while at the same time heading towards a situation where the United
States essentially becomes an integral part of a rule-based international
system.
Establishing a Strong Rule-Based
International System
In
the contemporary world, the United States has essentially become one of rather
than the only center of power in the international order. A consequence of this
situation is that there are a number of emerging powers which have arisen to
challenge American power. The emergence of powers such as Russia, China, and
India has the potential of changing the face of the world, with each
essentially becoming dominant in its own region. The sooner the United States
accepts this new reality, the sooner will it be able to take the necessary
steps aimed at attaining moral leadership in the new order. Under such
circumstances, it will be essential to ensure that there is the establishment
of steps aimed at reducing executive war powers because the latter will no
longer be needed in solving conflicts. A rules-based system will help to bring
about greater global stability because all of the major players will have to
adhere to specific guidelines and rules aimed at reducing conflict between them
(Taylor, 2016).
Being a part of this system would be extremely beneficial for the United States
because it will no longer be forced into conflicts that come about because of a
president’s whim or because of obligations that end up draining the nation’s
resources.
Concentrating on Preventing Direct Threats
Executive
war powers are aimed at preventing direct threats to the nation. However, over
the years, these powers have been abused by various administrations, but rather
than protecting American interests, they have made situations worse than they
were before. It is therefore important that Congress takes the step of reducing
executive war powers so that when decisions to go to war are made, they are
made rationally. Executive war powers should be used for preventing direct or
immediate threats, such as the current one that has been instigated by ISIS.
The latter organization is one of the biggest threats to the United States and
it is critical that it is dealt with effectively. This means that the executive
has to be allowed the power to make use of the military to bring about an end
to this threat, especially considering that ISIS has shown an uncanny ability
to get targets far away from its base of operations in Iraq and Syria.
Moreover, the executive must be prevented from being distracted by other conflicts
when fighting ISIS. Among these distractions is getting involved in the Syrian
Civil War on the side of the rebels because many of the latter groups could
easily be absorbed into ISIS (Bakke & Kuypers, 2016). Additionally, it is because
of the weakening of the Syrian government through American and allied support
of rebels that ISIS has been enabled to survive for so long in the country.
Therefore, Congress’s restraining executive war powers will help in the
prevention of such instances as the arbitrary use of military force as when
President Trump ordered the bombing of a Syrian airbase as a response to the
Assad regime’s alleged use of sarin gas on a rebel-held area. As stated above,
the United States should concentrate on direct threats to it and should allow
the Syrians to find their own path.
Conclusion
Reining
in executive war powers has the potential of helping in ensuring that all
military activities carried out by the United States are responsible and only
in the national interest. In those circumstances where there has been the
arbitrary use of the military, without any solid evidence as well as under
false pretenses, the end result has been failed states and civil wars that have
left a path of destruction. Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen are areas where
American or allied involvement have led to more harm being done than the
original objectives that were intended. It is pertinent that the use of
military power by the executive is placed under the oversight of Congress
because the latter has a greater ability to curtail the excesses that the
executive might indulge in when it declares war. The achievement of this goal
would go a long way towards making sure that administrations make more
responsible decisions when it comes to matters concerning engaging in conflicts
in the name of protecting national interests.
References
Bakke, P. C., & Kuypers, J. A. (2016).
The Syrian Civil War, International Outreach, and a Clash of Worldviews. KB Journal, 11(2).
Goldsmith,
J. (2012). Power and constraint: the
accountable presidency after 9/11: WW Norton & Company.
Heydarian,
R. J. (2017). Tragedy of Small Power Politics: Duterte and the Shifting Sands
of Philippine Foreign Policy. Asian
Security, 1-17.
Ikenberry,
G. J. (2013). The liberal international order and its discontents After Liberalism? (pp. 91-102):
Springer.
Rabkin,
J. A. (2004). The case for sovereignty:
why the world should welcome American independence: American Enterprise
Institute.
Taylor,
J. B. (2016). An International Monetary
System Built on Sound Policy Rules. Paper presented at the Keynote Address
International Conference on Macroeconomic Analysis and International Finance,
University of Crete, Greece. Crete: University of Crete.
Weingast, B. R. (1998). Political stability and civil war:
Institutions, commitment, and American democracy. Analytic narratives, 148, 153-155.
