Latest news with #CommanderInChief
Fox News
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Reporter's Notebook: Who really decides when America goes to war? The answer isn't so clear
The Founding Fathers were clear about lots of things, but in the era of modern warfare, who calls the shots and has the final say to head into battle was not the Founders' most crystalline moment. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to "declare War." But Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution anoints the President "Commander in Chief." Constitutional scholars argue that Congress must adopt a resolution before sending service personnel into hostilities abroad under the aegis of "war." But what if you just dispatch B-2 bombers from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to fly halfway around the world and slingshot 14 bunker buster bombs into three of Iran's nuclear facilities? Or if you greenlight Ohio Class subs to fire 30 Tomahawk missiles into Iran as well? Are you "at war?" Does the president have the authority to do that? What about Congress? Well, if you say the president — or Congress — both can be right. Or wrong. "I'm someone who believes in the Constitution and the War Powers Act," said Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., on Fox. "(President) Donald Trump did not declare war. He has the right as commander-in-chief to execute a very surgical process." Mace noted "there were no troops on the ground." But then the South Carolina Republican added this: "The 2001 AUMF is still in place. If we didn't like it, then Congress should get rid of it," said Mace. OK. Hold on. We know what "troops on the ground" is. We think (think) we understand what "declaring war" is (or do we?). But pray tell, what in the world is an "AUMF?" That's congressional speak for an "Authorization for Use of Military Force." It's kind of like Congress "declaring war." Both the House and Senate must vote to "declare war." Transom windows, pie safes and coal chutes in homes all started to become obsolete in the 1940s. So did "declaring war," apparently. Congress hasn't "declared war" since 1942. And that was against Romania. In fact, the U.S. has only "declared war" 11 times in history. And Congress doesn't just "declare war." Both the House and Senate must vote. And so what the modern Congress does now is approve an "authorization" to send the military into harm's way overseas. That could be by sea. Troops on the ground. In the air. You name it. Congress authorized the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964. That was the gateway to years of fighting in Vietnam and Southeast Asia. More recently, Congress blessed an authorization to invade Afghanistan and wage the "war on terror" in 2001 after 9/11. Lawmakers followed that up in the fall of 2002 for authorization to invade Iraq — on suspicion that Saddam Hussein's regime had an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. and its allies found nothing after the 2003 invasion. To Mace's point, the 2001 AUMF is so broad that four American presidents have deployed it for various military action around the world. Mace's argument would be that Iran or its proxies could launch terrorism attacks — or even a nuclear weapon somewhere. So, the 2001 AUMF is justification for American involvement. That said, most foreign policy and military experts argue that the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs are calcified, legislative relics. This is why it's a political kaleidoscope about how various lawmakers felt about launching attacks on Iran and if Congress must get involved. Democrats who usually oppose President Trump supported airstrikes. "I've been saying, 'Hell yes' for I think it's almost six weeks," said Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., is one of the most pro-Israel lawmakers from either party. "This window is open now," said Wasserman Schultz before the attack. "We can't take our boot off their neck." But possible strikes worried lawmakers even before the U.S. launched them. There's concern the conflagration could devolve into a broader conflict. "The idea that one strike is going to be adequate, that it's going to be one and done, I think is a misconception," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. Before the conflict, bipartisan House members just returned from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. "They are worried that this will escalate," said Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb. "And it wouldn't take a whole lot for it to spiral out of control." This is why Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., wanted the House to vote on their resolution before the U.S. attacked Iran. "I wouldn't call my side of the MAGA base isolationists. We are exhausted. We are tired from all of these wars. And we're non-interventionists," said Massie on CBS. "You're wasting billions of our dollars because we're sending more troops to the Middle East. What did you accomplish? And why are you oblivious to the American people who are sick of these wars?" said Khanna, also on CBS. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., didn't mention Trump by name, but in a screed posted on X, she excoriated the decision to strike Iran. "Only 6 months in and we are back into foreign wars, regime change, and world war 3. It feels like a complete bait and switch to please the neocons, warmongers, military industrial complex contracts, and neocon tv personalities that MAGA hates and who were NEVER TRUMPERS!" wrote Greene. Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, also questioned the authority of the president to fire on Iran. "While President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional," wrote Davidson on social media. But when it came to Republicans criticizing those who went against Trump, most GOPers took on Massie. "I'm not sure what's going on with Thomas. He votes no against everything," said Rep. Greg Murphy, R-N.C., on Fox Business. "I'm not sure why he's even here anymore." "He should be a Democrat because he's more aligned with them than with the Republican Party," said White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt on Fox about Massie. Shooing away Republicans toward the Democratic Party could be a questionable strategy considering the narrow GOP House majority. It's currently 220 to 212 with three vacancies. All three vacancies are in districts heavily favored by the Democrats. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., plans to compel the Senate to vote this week on a resolution to determine if the U.S. should tussle militarily with Iran. "We will have all members of the Senate declare whether or not the U.S. should be at war with Iran. It's unconstitutional for a president to initiate a war like this without Congress," said Kaine on Fox. "Every member of Congress needs to vote on this." Whether the U.S. is involved in "war" with Iran is an issue of debate. And here's the deepest secret: Lawmakers sometimes preach about exercising their war powers authorities under Article I of the Constitution. But because votes about "war" or "AUMFs" are complicated, some members would rather chatter about it — but cede their power to the president. The reason? These are very, very tough votes, and it's hard to decide the right thing to do. The Founders were skeptical of a powerful executive. They wanted to make sure a "monarch," or, in our case, a president, couldn't unilaterally dial up hostilities without a check from Congress. But over time, Congress relinquished many of those war powers. And that's why the executive seems to call the shots under these circumstances. Is the U.S. at war? Like many things, it may be in the eye of the beholder. And whether this responsibility ultimately lies with Congress or the president is in the eye of the beholder, too.
CNN
13-06-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Israeli security source says top military leaders and nuclear scientists were targeted in opening strikes
CNN analyst Barak Ravid weighs in on the reports that an Israeli security source briefed reporters that Iran's top military leaders as well as senior nuclear scientists were targeted in the opening strikes. Iranian state media reports Commander-in-chief of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps killed.
CNN
13-06-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Israeli security source says top military leaders and nuclear scientists were targeted in opening strikes
CNN analyst Barak Ravid weighs in on the reports that an Israeli security source briefed reporters that Iran's top military leaders as well as senior nuclear scientists were targeted in the opening strikes. Iranian state media reports Commander-in-chief of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps killed.
CNN
13-06-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Israeli security source says top military leaders and nuclear scientists were targeted in opening strikes
CNN analyst Barak Ravid weighs in on the reports that an Israeli security source briefed reporters that Iran's top military leaders as well as senior nuclear scientists were targeted in the opening strikes. Iranian state media reports Commander-in-chief of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps killed.
The Independent
12-06-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Trump's military parade is a US outlier in peacetime but parades and reviews have a long history
Troops marching in lockstep. Patriotic tunes filling the air. The commander in chief looking on at it all. The military parade commemorating the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary and coinciding with President Donald Trump's 79th birthday will be a new spectacle for many Americans. This will not be the first U.S. military parade. However, it is unusual outside of wartime, and Trump's approach stands out compared to his predecessors. The Army had long planned a celebration for its semi-quincentennial on June 14. Trump has wanted to preside over a grand military parade since his first presidency from 2017 to 2021. When he took office a second time, he found the ideal convergence and ratcheted the Pentagon's plans into a full-scale military parade on his birthday. The president, who is expected to speak in Washington as part of the affair, pitches the occasion as a way to celebrate U.S. power and service members' sacrifice. But there are bipartisan concerns about the cost as well as concerns about whether Trump is blurring traditional understandings of what it means to be a civilian commander in chief. Early US troop reviews Ceremonial reviews — troops looking their best and conducting drills for top commanders — trace back through medieval kingdoms to ancient empires of Rome, Persia and China. The pageantry continued in the young U.S. republic: Early presidents held military reviews as part of July 4th independence celebrations. That ended with James K. Polk, who was president from 1845 to 1849. President Andrew Johnson resurrected the tradition in 1865, holding a two-day 'Grand Review of the Armies' five weeks after Abraham Lincoln's assassination. It came after Johnson declared the Civil War over, a show of force meant to salve a war-weary nation — though more fighting and casualties would occur. Infantry, cavalry and artillery units — 145,000 soldiers, and even cattle — traversed Pennsylvania Avenue. Johnson, his Cabinet and top Army officers, including Ulysses S. Grant, Lincoln's last commanding general and the future 18th president, watched from a White House viewing stand. Spanish-American War and World War I: An era of victory parades begins The Spanish-American War was the first major international conflict for a reunited nation since the Civil War. It ended in a U.S. victory that established an American empire: Spain ceded Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Guam, and the U.S. purchased the Philippines for $20 million. Puerto Rico and Guam remain U.S. territories. New York City hosted multiple celebrations of a new global power. In August 1898, a fleet of warships, including the Brooklyn, the Texas, and the Oregon, sailed up the North River, more commonly known today as the Hudson River. American inventor Thomas Edison filmed the floating parade. The following September, New York hosted a naval and street parade to welcome home Rear Adm. George Dewey, who joined President William McKinley in a viewing stand. Many U.S. cities held World War I victory parades a few decades later. But neither Washington nor President Woodrow Wilson were the focal point. In Boston, a million civilians celebrated 20,000 troops in 1919. New York honored 25,000 troops marching in full uniform and combat gear. New York was the parade epicenter again for World War II On June 13, 1942, as U.S. involvement in World War II accelerated, about 30,000 people formed a mobilization parade in New York City. Participants included Army and Navy personnel, American Women's Voluntary Services members, Boy Scouts and military school cadets. Scores of floats rolled, too. One carried a massive bust of President Franklin Roosevelt, who did not attend. Less than four years later, the 82nd Airborne Division and Sherman tanks led a victory parade down Manhattan's Fifth Avenue. Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied commander during World War II, rode in a victory parade in Washington, D.C. In 1952, Eisenhower would join Grant and George Washington as top wartime commanders elevated to the presidency following their military achievements. Other World War II generals were honored in other homecoming parades. A long parade gap, despite multiple wars The U.S. did not hold national or major city parades after wars in Korea and Vietnam. Both ended without clear victory; Vietnam, especially, sparked bitter societal division, enough so that President Gerald Ford opted against a strong military presence in 1976 bicentennial celebrations, held a year after the fall of Saigon. Washington finally hosted a victory parade in 1991 after the first Persian Gulf War. The Constitution Avenue lineup included 8,000 troops, tanks, Patriot missiles and representatives of the international coalition, led by the U.S., that quickly drove an invading Iraq out of Kuwait. The commander in chief, George H.W. Bush, is the last U.S. president to have held an active-duty military post. He had been a World War II combat pilot who survived his plane being shot down over the Pacific Ocean. Veterans of the second Iraq and Afghanistan wars that followed the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks have not been honored in national parades. Inaugurations and a flight suit Inaugural parades include and sometimes feature military elements. Eisenhower's 1953 inaugural parade, at the outset of the Cold War, included 22,000 service members and an atomic cannon. Eight years later, President John F. Kennedy, a World War II Naval officer, watched armored tanks, Army and Navy personnel, dozens of missiles and Navy boats pass in front of his reviewing stand. More recent inaugurations have included honor guards, academy cadets, military bands and other personnel but not large combat assets. Notably, U.S. presidents, even when leading or attending military events, wear civilian attire rather than military garb, a standard set by Washington, who also eschewed being called 'General Washington' in favor of 'Mr. President.' Perhaps the lone exception came in 2003, when President George W. Bush, who had been a National Guard pilot, wore a flight suit when he landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln and declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq, which U.S. forces had invaded six weeks earlier. The aircraft carrier was not a parade venue but the president emerged to raucous cheers from uniformed service members. He put on a business suit to deliver a nationally televised speech in front a 'Mission Accomplished' banner. As the war dragged on to a less decisive outcome, that scene and its enduring images would become a political liability for the president. ___
