12.2 War powers and foreign policy

War powers and foreign policy are crucial aspects of the relationship between Congress and the President. The Constitution divides these powers, granting Congress the authority to declare war and the President the role of Commander-in-Chief.

Throughout history, this balance has been tested. Presidents have often initiated military action without formal declarations of war, while Congress has sought to reassert its authority through measures like the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

War Powers: President vs Congress

Constitutional Provisions

• Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces
• Article II, Section 2 designates the president as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, giving them authority to direct military operations once war has been declared
• The president has the power to make treaties with foreign nations, with the advice and consent of the Senate, and to appoint ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls
• Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, which can include imposing sanctions or embargoes

War Powers Resolution

• The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the president to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities and to withdraw forces after 60 days unless Congress declares war or authorizes continued military action
• The resolution was an attempt by Congress to reassert its authority over war powers, but its effectiveness has been limited by ambiguous language and inconsistent enforcement
• Presidents have often relied on their role as Commander in Chief to initiate military action without congressional approval, particularly in response to immediate threats or in the context of multilateral operations
• Congress has sometimes been reluctant to assert its war powers, fearing political backlash or not wanting to constrain the president's ability to respond to crises

Historical Examples of War Powers

19th and Early 20th Century Conflicts

• The Mexican-American War (1846-1848) was initiated by President James K. Polk without a formal declaration of war by Congress, setting a precedent for future conflicts
• President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and expanded the size of the army without congressional approval during the Civil War
• Congress declared war against Spain in 1898, demonstrating their constitutional authority

World Wars and Cold War Era

• Congress declared war against Germany in 1917 (World War I) and Japan and Germany in 1941 (World War II), demonstrating their constitutional authority
• President Harry S. Truman committed U.S. troops to the Korean War (1950-1953) without a formal declaration of war by Congress, relying on a United Nations Security Council resolution
• The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964 gave President Lyndon B. Johnson broad authority to escalate U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War without a formal declaration of war

Post-9/11 Conflicts

• President George W. Bush received congressional authorization for the use of military force against those responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks (AUMF 2001) and against Iraq in 2002, but not formal declarations of war
• President Barack Obama relied on the AUMF 2001 to justify military action against ISIS in Iraq and Syria without seeking new congressional authorization
• The use of the AUMF 2001 in multiple conflicts over an extended period has raised questions about the proper scope and duration of congressional authorizations for the use of military force

Balancing Power in Foreign Policy

Treaty-Making and Appointments

• In foreign policy, the president's ability to negotiate treaties and appoint key officials (ambassadors, public ministers, consuls) gives them significant influence
• Congress retains the power to ratify treaties and confirm appointments, providing a check on the president's authority
• The balance of power can shift depending on factors such as the president's political capital, the composition of Congress, and the nature and urgency of the foreign policy issue at hand

Congressional Oversight and Funding

• Congress can use its power of the purse to shape foreign policy by approving or denying funding for specific initiatives or attaching conditions to appropriations bills
• Congressional oversight hearings and investigations can hold the executive branch accountable for its foreign policy decisions and actions
• The effectiveness of congressional oversight can vary depending on the level of bipartisan cooperation and the willingness of the executive branch to comply with requests for information or testimony

Public Opinion and Foreign Policy

Influence on Decision-Making

• Public opinion can constrain or embolden presidents in their use of military force, as they seek to maintain political support and legitimacy
  • The Vietnam War saw a shift in public opinion from support to opposition, which eventually contributed to the U.S. withdrawal and the passage of the War Powers Resolution
  • Strong public backing for the Gulf War in 1991 enabled President George H.W. Bush to secure congressional authorization and assemble a broad international coalition

Role of Media Coverage

• Media coverage can shape public perceptions and influence decision-making by highlighting the costs and benefits of military action or diplomatic initiatives
  • The "CNN effect" suggests that real-time media coverage of conflicts and humanitarian crises can pressure policymakers to intervene or take action
  • Investigative reporting, such as the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War or the Washington Post's coverage of the Watergate scandal, can expose government misconduct and lead to increased congressional oversight
• Presidents and members of Congress often use media appearances and public statements to build support for their positions or to criticize opponents, shaping the narrative around war and foreign policy debates

Impact of Polarization and Social Media

• Partisan polarization in both public opinion and media coverage can exacerbate tensions between the executive and legislative branches, making it harder to find common ground on war and foreign policy issues
• The rise of social media has allowed political leaders to communicate directly with the public, bypassing traditional media gatekeepers and potentially influencing public opinion and legislative outcomes
• Social media can also contribute to the spread of misinformation and the formation of echo chambers, further polarizing public discourse on foreign policy issues