There was the expected outcry from some on Capitol Hill regarding this weekend’s bombing of Iran ordered by President Trump. The argument: Presidents need an authorization from Congress when committing the country to hostilities potentially involving thousands of servicemen and women.
While these members may have a point, the fact is that the president’s decision on Iran was consistent with a long line of unilateral presidential actions going back to Cold War days.
A few notables:
The Korean War was initiated by President Truman without legislative authorization.
President Eisenhower ordered assassinations of foreign leaders and utilized the CIA in coup attempts apparently without even notifying Congress.
President Kennedy ordered the failed invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs in 1961 without congressional authorization.
President Nixon expanded the war in Vietnam into Cambodia and Laos without congressional authorization, possibly violating international law.
President Reagan seemed to believe his executive authority empowered him to arm rebels in Nicaragua despite a law forbidding exactly that.
President Clinton waged a bombing campaign in Kosovo without congressional authorization.
President Obama ordered airstrikes on Libya without congressional authorization.
This list just scratches the surface. One point is clear: the expansive view on executive power in the realm of war is bipartisan. And furthermore, it is typical that the “principled” opposition to unilateral presidential action is concentrated among members of the party out of power. This is true today as well, with Republican House members Massie and Greene among the rare exceptions in the Iran case.
The constitutional requirement that Congress declare war is effectively a dead letter. But even the need for authorization from Congress seems optional for pretty much every president. Authorizations did happen in the cases of Vietnam and the wars waged during the two Bush administrations. But it is interesting to note that Bush I regarded the Desert Storm authorization he got from Congress as a nice thing, but he made it clear he believed he had the authority to move forward regardless of the outcome of what was a contested vote in both chambers.
The fact is that ever since America established itself as an empire with military bases all over the globe every president has believed that among his powers was the right to initiate military action with or without Congress.
This all may be regrettable, but consider that the president’s unilateral right to launch a nuclear attack is rarely up for debate given the impracticality of requiring congressional input. As Vice President Cheney said in 2008, we understand that the president has to be accompanied at all times by an aide with the “nuclear football.” He went on to say:
[The president] could launch the kind of devastating [nuclear] attack the world has never seen. He doesn’t have to check with anybody. He doesn’t have to call the Congress; he doesn’t have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in.
Does the need for the president to have unilateral authority with nuclear weapons justify his taking lesser unilateral actions when time may not be of the essence? That’s debatable, but it seems, when it comes to Congress, where you stand on the matter is frequently dictated by where you sit.