What if Trump starts a war without Congressional authorization?

[Beet]

1) He requested a 10% ($54 billion) increase in defense spending, but according to the Washington Post, another $30 billion in supplemental defense spending, for a total increase of 18%. He's cutting the State Department, which oversees diplomacy.

2) He speaks of war using terms like 'when', not 'if'. Back in 2011 he said he was 'very, very' hawkish.

3) He is obsessed with appointing Generals and military commanders to his Cabinet and advisers, and wanted a communist-style military parade for the inauguration.

4) He has little respect for precedent, checks and balances, or institutions.

So what if he starts a war without Congressional authorization? Let's say it's September 2018 or 2020, and his approval rating is 40%.

The problem with wars, is that once they start, it's fait accompli. Once American soldiers are dying, 90% of the population will rally, and Congress can't just go back and revoke the war. It doesn't matter if the means of starting it was illegal in the first place. Congress would have no choice but to ratify. Trump's support among FBI/ICE/military types is very high. If he gave the order to attack, as Commander-in-Chief would the chain of command actually disobey?

This is what worries me about Trump.

[Ronnie]

I think you would be correct that 90% of the population would rally if we had a president who was elected in normal circumstances and in good faith, like Obama, but Trump is no such thing.  It's possible that a good number of independents would stand behind him, but Democrats are deeply suspicious of him and would not let him off the hook so easily, particularly if it seems like he declared the war hastily and with cynical intentions.

[Blue3]

It's already legal, as long as operations end within 60 days (I believe).

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

So he'd be exactly like the last two then?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think you would be correct that 90% of the population would rally if we had a president who was elected in normal circumstances and in good faith, like Obama, but Trump is no such thing.  It's possible that a good number of independents would stand behind him, but Democrats are deeply suspicious of him and would not let him off the hook so easily, particularly if it seems like he declared the war hastily and with cynical intentions.

Oh yes, like George W. Bush, who won the popular vote and didn't need any funny business to win Florida in 2000.

[Mr. Morden]

What is a “war” though?  Trump doesn’t appear to have a Wilsonian bone in his body.  He is pure Jacksonian.  So he doesn’t care about nation building.  Thus, likely no occupying army to send into a city that Trump bombs into ruins.  He could simply bomb from the air and not worry about the political repercussions on the ground.  And if an air campaign counts as a war, then….don’t we already do that all the time?  On the pretense that it’s covered by the AUMF from 2001?

Anyway, on Trump’s Jacksonian instincts and how his foreign policy is connected to his views on Islam and immigration, I think Peter Beinart basically had it right when he wrote this way back in 2015:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/donald-trumps-formula-for-success-in-foreign-policy/417456/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Ronnie]

I think you would be correct that 90% of the population would rally if we had a president who was elected in normal circumstances and in good faith, like Obama, but Trump is no such thing.  It's possible that a good number of independents would stand behind him, but Democrats are deeply suspicious of him and would not let him off the hook so easily, particularly if it seems like he declared the war hastily and with cynical intentions.

Oh yes, like George W. Bush, who won the popular vote and didn't need any funny business to win Florida in 2000.

Trump is not Dubya.  Dubya did not immediately appeal to fear and resentment when the attacks happened, as Trump would.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

I mean considering that he still has the f***ing 2001 AUMF on his side, if he ties it to terrorism ~~~somehow~~~ he can probably get away with it.

[Blue3]

Bush also wanted immigration reform with a path to citizenship, and defended Muslims and Islam itself early and often.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think you would be correct that 90% of the population would rally if we had a president who was elected in normal circumstances and in good faith, like Obama, but Trump is no such thing.  It's possible that a good number of independents would stand behind him, but Democrats are deeply suspicious of him and would not let him off the hook so easily, particularly if it seems like he declared the war hastily and with cynical intentions.

Oh yes, like George W. Bush, who won the popular vote and didn't need any funny business to win Florida in 2000.

Trump is not Dubya.  Dubya did not immediately appeal to fear and resentment when the attacks happened, as Trump would.

Lets not re-write history. First of all Iraq wasn't involved with 9/11. Secondly, the Patriot Act and all the expansion of the military industrial complex played on people's fears. 9/11 could have been prevented if the FBI had done their damn job. They had Zacarias Moussaoui in custody, and one investigator wrote that he wanted to fly a plane into the WTC. Epic fail for not investigating enough there.

[ApatheticAustrian]

the question is not if he did...but with whom and if he would think about the direct consequences.

[Mr. Morden]

I think you would be correct that 90% of the population would rally if we had a president who was elected in normal circumstances and in good faith, like Obama, but Trump is no such thing.  It's possible that a good number of independents would stand behind him, but Democrats are deeply suspicious of him and would not let him off the hook so easily, particularly if it seems like he declared the war hastily and with cynical intentions.

Oh yes, like George W. Bush, who won the popular vote and didn't need any funny business to win Florida in 2000.

Trump is not Dubya.  Dubya did not immediately appeal to fear and resentment when the attacks happened, as Trump would.

Lets not re-write history. First of all Iraq wasn't involved with 9/11. Secondly, the Patriot Act and all the expansion of the military industrial complex played on people's fears. 9/11 could have been prevented if the FBI had done their damn job. They had Zacarias Moussaoui in custody, and one investigator wrote that he wanted to fly a plane into the WTC. Epic fail for not investigating enough there.

Bush fixated mostly on the external enemy, whereas Trump fixates mostly on the enemy within (i.e., ordinary Muslims who either already reside in the United States or would like to come here).  Part of this difference is because the terrorism of the early 2000s was more likely to involve large terrorist networks as opposed to lone wolves, but part of it is that Bush's inner circle had more "neocon" voices who thought that we could remake the Middle East in our image, whereas Trump talks more to people who view the Muslim world as intrinsically hostile to the West, and incapable or uninterested in adopting American values.

I mean, Trump actually said "I think Islam hates us":

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/donald-trump-islam-hates-us/

which is not at all the tone that Bush ever used in describing Islam as a whole.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think you would be correct that 90% of the population would rally if we had a president who was elected in normal circumstances and in good faith, like Obama, but Trump is no such thing.  It's possible that a good number of independents would stand behind him, but Democrats are deeply suspicious of him and would not let him off the hook so easily, particularly if it seems like he declared the war hastily and with cynical intentions.

Oh yes, like George W. Bush, who won the popular vote and didn't need any funny business to win Florida in 2000.

Trump is not Dubya.  Dubya did not immediately appeal to fear and resentment when the attacks happened, as Trump would.

Lets not re-write history. First of all Iraq wasn't involved with 9/11. Secondly, the Patriot Act and all the expansion of the military industrial complex played on people's fears. 9/11 could have been prevented if the FBI had done their damn job. They had Zacarias Moussaoui in custody, and one investigator wrote that he wanted to fly a plane into the WTC. Epic fail for not investigating enough there.

Bush fixated mostly on the external enemy, whereas Trump fixates mostly on the enemy within (i.e., ordinary Muslims who either already reside in the United States or would like to come here).  Part of this difference is because the terrorism of the early 2000s was more likely to involve large terrorist networks as opposed to lone wolves, but part of it is that Bush's inner circle had more "neocon" voices who thought that we could remake the Middle East in our image, whereas Trump talks more to people who view the Muslim world as intrinsically hostile to the West, and incapable or uninterested in adopting American values.

I mean, Trump actually said "I think Islam hates us":

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/donald-trump-islam-hates-us/

which is not at all the tone that Bush ever used in describing Islam as a whole.

So killing a million Muslims is fine as long as they're outside the US? Obama even killed a US citizen.

And domestically, Bush destroyed the 4th amendment.

[Cashew]

Absurd question. Nothing at all would happen to him, as the precedent has already been established beforehand.

[Bismarck]

If it's  war with only special forces and dropping bombs on third world peoples, Obama gave him plenty of precedent to do that. A major ground or naval war with a foreign power would be something different though I don't believe he could get away with that.

[Green Line]

We're going to need a lot, lot more than a 54 billion increase.  That's not acceptable.

[Mr. Morden]

I think you would be correct that 90% of the population would rally if we had a president who was elected in normal circumstances and in good faith, like Obama, but Trump is no such thing.  It's possible that a good number of independents would stand behind him, but Democrats are deeply suspicious of him and would not let him off the hook so easily, particularly if it seems like he declared the war hastily and with cynical intentions.

Oh yes, like George W. Bush, who won the popular vote and didn't need any funny business to win Florida in 2000.

Trump is not Dubya.  Dubya did not immediately appeal to fear and resentment when the attacks happened, as Trump would.

Lets not re-write history. First of all Iraq wasn't involved with 9/11. Secondly, the Patriot Act and all the expansion of the military industrial complex played on people's fears. 9/11 could have been prevented if the FBI had done their damn job. They had Zacarias Moussaoui in custody, and one investigator wrote that he wanted to fly a plane into the WTC. Epic fail for not investigating enough there.

Bush fixated mostly on the external enemy, whereas Trump fixates mostly on the enemy within (i.e., ordinary Muslims who either already reside in the United States or would like to come here).  Part of this difference is because the terrorism of the early 2000s was more likely to involve large terrorist networks as opposed to lone wolves, but part of it is that Bush's inner circle had more "neocon" voices who thought that we could remake the Middle East in our image, whereas Trump talks more to people who view the Muslim world as intrinsically hostile to the West, and incapable or uninterested in adopting American values.

I mean, Trump actually said "I think Islam hates us":

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/donald-trump-islam-hates-us/

which is not at all the tone that Bush ever used in describing Islam as a whole.

So killing a million Muslims is fine as long as they're outside the US? Obama even killed a US citizen.

I’m not saying it’s a good thing.  I’m just explaining the difference between neocons and paleocons on this issue.  The latter tends to view Islam itself as being in conflict with the West in a way that the former does not.  This is also discussed in this ~3.5 minute clip from a 2011 conversation on Bloggingheads:

http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/3105?in=13:03&out=16:38

[Beet]

Absurd question. Nothing at all would happen to him, as the precedent has already been established beforehand.

This. Try harder, Beet.

I'm not talking about some airstrikes.

I'm talking about something more along the lines of attacking North Korea or Iran. It would not be resolved within 60 days, far from it.

The last time we had a war of that magnitude was Iraq, for which AUMF was passed; or beyond that, Vietnam, for which the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed. Before that would be the Korean War, for which there was no Congressional authorization, but there was a UN security council authorization.

In general, all military engagements have had some kind of Congressional authorization, or a UN Security Council resolution. It would be unprecedented to start a major war without either one.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Trump wont start a war.

Donald is a businessman, and as such, he will bluff out his foreign state political enemies.

I have actually come to learn that he will rapidly decrease US military assistance to countries like South Korea and European nations.

Trump will save a lot of money by removing US military assistance to countries who really should be paying their own bills.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

Nothing extraordinary would happen, because it's not unusual

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Trump wont start a war.

Donald isnq businessman, and as such, he will bluff out hos foreign state political enemies.

I have actually come to learn that he will rapidly decrease US military assistance to countries like South Korea and European nations.

Trump will save a lot of money by removing US military assistance to countries who really should be paying their own bills.

By increasing defense spending by 10% at the cost of deep cuts everywhere?



k...

[Beet]

Nothing extraordinary would happen, because it's not unusual

Did you read my last post? It would be unprecedented to start a major war without some sort of stamp of approval from Congress or the UN. Even Bush went to Congress.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Nothing extraordinary would happen, because it's not unusual

Did you read my last post? It would be unprecedented to start a major war without some sort of stamp of approval from Congress or the UN. Even Bush went to Congress.

Major wars can always start out minor. See Vietnam.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

Nothing extraordinary would happen, because it's not unusual

Did you read my last post? It would be unprecedented to start a major war without some sort of stamp of approval from Congress or the UN. Even Bush went to Congress.

You don't need the US to be "boots on the ground" for it to be massively involved in a major war

[Beet]

Nothing extraordinary would happen, because it's not unusual

Did you read my last post? It would be unprecedented to start a major war without some sort of stamp of approval from Congress or the UN. Even Bush went to Congress.

You don't need the US to be "boots on the ground" for it to be massively involved in a major war

That doesn't alter my point, though. Even Lyndon Johnson had the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. It would be unprecedented for the president to start something on the scale of Vietnam by executive order.