3 ms·

War Powers Resolution

ipnon 1y ago
Because the US has so many bases worldwide, it's always under some kind of attack. Iran for example has been aiding openly the groups that attack American bases in the Middle East for decades. The Beirut Barracks Bombing is a tragic example. This law is too vague in scope, and really just acquiesces Congress' constitutional power to decide who to wage war against to the President in a very limp way. The Congress is also fundamentally a popularity contest, and wartime Presidents generally gain popularity in the short-term, for better or worse. So again, Congress digs its own hole and blames the Presidency for all the dirt on the ground. Grifters the whole lot! For what it's worth, although Trump is famous for his strong Presidency, he's merely wielding a sword that FDR forged, and was polished and filed to a savage edge through successive presidencies. FDR really prototyped the obsequious wartime Congress that acts as a rubber stamp for creating the endless bureaucracy we now call "the deep state." And it is within this "deep state" that presidential fall guys are born and bred, Oliver North being a relevant example. This trend has continued unabated for the most part with Presidents from each party, reaching its zenith in the extrajudicial killing of American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in 2011 by order of President Obama, a disturbing innovation in both constitutional law and drone warfare.
_1tem 1y ago
I feel like Trump and the United States are in a damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don’t situation. If the US doesn’t protect its ally Israel, then that’s a huge loss in credibility to American hard power and possibly the beginning of the end of the State of Israel, because Iran’s ballistic missile program is dangerously effective. If the US goes ahead with all-out war in Iran, this risks becoming another trillion dollar boondoggle like Afghanistan, except worse because Trump’s base is about less foreign involvement, low gas prices, and ending wars. A war with Iran could also go very badly because it’s not clear how to stop a ballistic missile program in a country the size of Iran (years of bombing even failed to stop the Houthis from lobbing missiles). And if war creates more instability in the Middle East - Israel will have much bigger problems if the Saudi Arabian monarchy for example collapses. No good options, and the Middle East is being completely reshaped regardless. Meanwhile China quietly supports Iran: https://www.scmp.com/opinion/china-opinion/article/3314468/israeli-strikes-one-more-challenge-new-china-iran-rail-corridor https://www.scmp.com/opinion/china-opinion/article/3314468/i...
- squishington 1y ago
  The scariest aspect to me is trumps unpredictability. He acts based on his psychological needs in the moment, I.e. need for narcissistic supply. He isn't ideological in the way that netanyahu and Putin are, so he is going to react based on how others are reacting to him. He clearly has learning difficulties and isn't able to grasp history and politics. He also isn't someone who asks for advice. It challenges his need for a sense of total competence.
  - mikeweiss 1y ago
    I mean he definitely asks for other people to help him come to decisions.... You just don't hear about it unless it doesn't work out and he's looking for a scapegoat.
    - bryanlarsen 1y ago
      You hear about it all the time. It happens most days. Trump has a meeting with person X, then announces something favorable to person X. The next day he has a meeting with person Y, then announces something favorable to person Y, even if it contradicts the previous day's announcement.
    - squishington 1y ago
      I feel like his public disagreement with tulsi gabbard over Iran's armament situation exemplifies the tension between his psychological needs and the stability of his government. These kind of conflicts shouldn't play out in the public sphere.
- happytoexplain 1y ago
  >Trump’s base is about less foreign involvement, low gas prices, and ending wars Is this broadly true? I'm not disagreeing, it's just that I do not keep up with politics, but most of the Republicans in my life want Trump to destroy Iran, which I thought seemed unsurprising, politically? Yes, they want less foreign involvement and less war, but with the gigantic exception of the case where they hate the target culture (again, I'm just talking about people in my life).
daft_pink 1y ago
He’s just going to wait until Israel degrades Iran to the maximum and drop a few bombs on the Iranian nuclear program. He’s hardly committing the United States to war. But if Iran retaliates and harms American forces in any major way, he will respond in kind and likely get congressional support to do so. Discussing the war powers act is spurious.
- analognoise 1y ago
  Surely you realize that commits the United States to war, right? To quote Machiavelli: “Wars begin when you will, but they do not end when you please.” You think Iran is going to be bombed and then… not retaliate? I’m just trying to understand, because this sounds like magical thinking.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - daft_pink 1y ago
    I don't think dropping a few munitions to destroy the nuclear program of a hostile country commits us to full scale war, especially when that country is currently losing a full scale war with a much less powerful country and will be lucky to survive. If you believe they are stupid enough to start a war with the United States, then denying them nuclear weapons was inherently the correct decision. I think virtually every US President since Jimmy Carter when given the opportunity to destroy an enemy's nuclear weapons program after another country has decimated them would take it. The existing narrative suggests that possessing nuclear weapons deters invasions, potentially motivating countries to develop nuclear capabilities as a means of securing their regimes. Using military resources to prevent pariah countries from getting nuclear weapons and bombing them because they are putting together a nuclear weapons program turns that on it's head and sends the message that seeking to acquire nuclear weapons will make it less likely that your regime survives. Taking back that narrative makes us all safer and less likely that the world will end from thermonuclear war.
    - analognoise 1y ago

Because the US has so many bases worldwide, it's always under some kind of attack. Iran for example has been aiding openly the groups that attack American bases in the Middle East for decades. The Beirut Barracks Bombing is a tragic example. This law is too vague in scope, and really just acquiesces Congress' constitutional power to decide who to wage war against to the President in a very limp way. The Congress is also fundamentally a popularity contest, and wartime Presidents generally gain popularity in the short-term, for better or worse. So again, Congress digs its own hole and blames the Presidency for all the dirt on the ground. Grifters the whole lot! For what it's worth, although Trump is famous for his strong Presidency, he's merely wielding a sword that FDR forged, and was polished and filed to a savage edge through successive presidencies. FDR really prototyped the obsequious wartime Congress that acts as a rubber stamp for creating the endless bureaucracy we now call "the deep state." And it is within this "deep state" that presidential fall guys are born and bred, Oliver North being a relevant example. This trend has continued unabated for the most part with Presidents from each party, reaching its zenith in the extrajudicial killing of American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in 2011 by order of President Obama, a disturbing innovation in both constitutional law and drone warfare.

_1tem 1y ago

I feel like Trump and the United States are in a damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don’t situation. If the US doesn’t protect its ally Israel, then that’s a huge loss in credibility to American hard power and possibly the beginning of the end of the State of Israel, because Iran’s ballistic missile program is dangerously effective. If the US goes ahead with all-out war in Iran, this risks becoming another trillion dollar boondoggle like Afghanistan, except worse because Trump’s base is about less foreign involvement, low gas prices, and ending wars. A war with Iran could also go very badly because it’s not clear how to stop a ballistic missile program in a country the size of Iran (years of bombing even failed to stop the Houthis from lobbing missiles). And if war creates more instability in the Middle East - Israel will have much bigger problems if the Saudi Arabian monarchy for example collapses. No good options, and the Middle East is being completely reshaped regardless. Meanwhile China quietly supports Iran: https://www.scmp.com/opinion/china-opinion/article/3314468/israeli-strikes-one-more-challenge-new-china-iran-rail-corridor https://www.scmp.com/opinion/china-opinion/article/3314468/i...

squishington 1y ago
The scariest aspect to me is trumps unpredictability. He acts based on his psychological needs in the moment, I.e. need for narcissistic supply. He isn't ideological in the way that netanyahu and Putin are, so he is going to react based on how others are reacting to him. He clearly has learning difficulties and isn't able to grasp history and politics. He also isn't someone who asks for advice. It challenges his need for a sense of total competence.
- mikeweiss 1y ago
  I mean he definitely asks for other people to help him come to decisions.... You just don't hear about it unless it doesn't work out and he's looking for a scapegoat.
  - bryanlarsen 1y ago
    You hear about it all the time. It happens most days. Trump has a meeting with person X, then announces something favorable to person X. The next day he has a meeting with person Y, then announces something favorable to person Y, even if it contradicts the previous day's announcement.
  - squishington 1y ago
    I feel like his public disagreement with tulsi gabbard over Iran's armament situation exemplifies the tension between his psychological needs and the stability of his government. These kind of conflicts shouldn't play out in the public sphere.
happytoexplain 1y ago
>Trump’s base is about less foreign involvement, low gas prices, and ending wars Is this broadly true? I'm not disagreeing, it's just that I do not keep up with politics, but most of the Republicans in my life want Trump to destroy Iran, which I thought seemed unsurprising, politically? Yes, they want less foreign involvement and less war, but with the gigantic exception of the case where they hate the target culture (again, I'm just talking about people in my life).

daft_pink 1y ago

He’s just going to wait until Israel degrades Iran to the maximum and drop a few bombs on the Iranian nuclear program. He’s hardly committing the United States to war. But if Iran retaliates and harms American forces in any major way, he will respond in kind and likely get congressional support to do so. Discussing the war powers act is spurious.

analognoise 1y ago
Surely you realize that commits the United States to war, right? To quote Machiavelli: “Wars begin when you will, but they do not end when you please.” You think Iran is going to be bombed and then… not retaliate? I’m just trying to understand, because this sounds like magical thinking.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- daft_pink 1y ago
  I don't think dropping a few munitions to destroy the nuclear program of a hostile country commits us to full scale war, especially when that country is currently losing a full scale war with a much less powerful country and will be lucky to survive. If you believe they are stupid enough to start a war with the United States, then denying them nuclear weapons was inherently the correct decision. I think virtually every US President since Jimmy Carter when given the opportunity to destroy an enemy's nuclear weapons program after another country has decimated them would take it. The existing narrative suggests that possessing nuclear weapons deters invasions, potentially motivating countries to develop nuclear capabilities as a means of securing their regimes. Using military resources to prevent pariah countries from getting nuclear weapons and bombing them because they are putting together a nuclear weapons program turns that on it's head and sends the message that seeking to acquire nuclear weapons will make it less likely that your regime survives. Taking back that narrative makes us all safer and less likely that the world will end from thermonuclear war.
  - analognoise 1y ago