After Trump unilaterally made the decision to launch a drone strike that killed Major General Qassem Suleimani, Congress has been pursuing a war powers resolution. Despite the recent cooling down of tensions with Iran, Democrats still express worry over the strike and the justification behind it. The resolution will ensure that Trump cannot take military action against Iran without the approval of Congress. The House has already voted on a similar resolution, which passed by 224-194. In the Senate, there is bipartisan support for the resolution, with some Republicans crossing the aisle to support the resolution. With that addition, the Senate may be able to reach the required 51 votes needed to pass the resolution.
Questions:
1. Is a war powers resolution needed?
2. Is Congress's reaction justified?
3. How should Congress deal with similar situations in the future?
Firstly, here we go again with the CSS.
ReplyDelete1. I do think that a war powers resolution, given Trump's hot-headed approach to foreign policy, is the safe thing to do. If there's ever a second incident that creates conflict, having this safeguard in place will be advantageous.
2. I do think Congress is within its rights and authority to pass a war powers resolution for the good of the nation. Given how Trump tweeted about committing war crimes, if that didn't raise alarm bells I'd be more concerned.
3. I think this method is good enough. Without seeing what the long-term fallout of this is, it's hard to say.
I agree with Ryan; I think that there are more important benefits than potential setbacks by implementing a war powers resolution, especially since our president seems to get caught up in his own priorities. This was quite a scare for both nations, and similar incidents could be prevented if this resolution is implemented. Congress' actions are justified; it was a reactionary response to sharpen up protocol in an attempt to prevent unnecessary conflicts in the future. The passage of the resolution in the House, and especially the bipartisan support within the Senate exemplifies that this is a needed change. I don't think a similar situation will reoccur if this war powers resolution is passed; if an attack crosses more minds and is still allowed execution, then it is more than likely justified.
ReplyDeleteGiven the US’s involvement in the Middle East, I think it is wise to have such a war powers resolution in place in general. I agree with Ryan and Justin’s statements: if the resolution is passed, then a similar incident in the future can be avoided, which is for the benefit of all, and ensures that the president is not exerting too much unchecked influence in the military.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the congress's concern was justified; however, I believe that politicians blew things out of proportion. President Trump has a track record for not adhering to conventional styles of leading and disregards towards standard procedure. With that said; however, Suleimani and his regime became notorious from their oppressive rule and the crimes he committed on thousands of U.S. servicemen, and countless other Irianian citizens. At the end of the day Congress and the American people were not bothered by the taking out of Osama Bin Laden. Suleimani posed a risk to national security and had several U.S. targets acquired in his agenda, preemptive action was required to mitigate casualties of both U.S. and Iran lives. Despite this said this does not necessarily justify the actions taken on behalf of one man, but rather the protection of countless innocent lives.
ReplyDeleteI agree with many peers that a War Powers Resolution is a necessary check against executive branch's power. Often, split-second executive decisions determine a war's occurrence, especially in today's era with today's president. I believe Congress's reaction is justified, especially considering its bipartisan support. Precedents of this policy include the 1973 War Powers Resolution that was passed during the Vietnam War. Congress overturned Nixon's veto of the bill, revealing that a president's mindset may contradict a nation's best judgement. The policy has catered to positive implications in peacekeeping up until present-day. I acknowledge that part of a president's role is making efficient decisions (as Hamilton implicates in Federalist No. 70), but with a subject as volatile as starting war, I believe Congress's consent ought to be required.
ReplyDeleteThe constitution grants the power to declare war to the legislative branch. However, in recent decades the executive branch has been trying to essentially steal those powers for themselves. This resolution is justified as it ensures that the constitution is followed and that Congress gets the powers that are rightfully theirs. On a broader level, it is essential that the branches of government defend their right to their powers.
ReplyDeleteThe line is blurred in this case, as the strike on Iran is a declaration of war in all but name. For example, Obama also ordered drone strikes without congressional approval, albeit the conditions were different. Obama ordered strikes as a humanitarian effort, while Trump ordered strikes purely as a act of violence. However, because Trump technically is not declaring war, it is a loophole in Congress's power to declare war.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that a war powers resolution should be implemented because the basis of the government falls on the power of checks and balances between each of the branches of government, so allowing the president to unilaterally make a decision on something as big as this is quite absurd. Because this incident has such large and sweeping consequences that can result from it, it is vitally important that this is not something that a single person can decide on. I do acknowledge, however, that this can cause the decision-making process to become much slower and much more frustrating due to the amount of divide that some decisions can have.
ReplyDelete