Discuss the issue of how American military forces should be employed in conflict

| April 14, 2018

I need 2 responses for forum posts. 150-300 words a piece with 1 or 2 responses. Also, “The reply genuinely adds something to the Forum, in terms of new information or fresh insight.” I know it’s short notice, but there will be more later and I’ll give ample time.You helped me out with a forum post of this
topic but I need two responses for other students.
The Question Was:discuss the issue of how American military
forces should be employed in conflict abroad. Is it strictly the president’s
call? What is Congress’s role? Are the restrictions in the War Powers
Resolution of 1973 realistic? How should this issue be resolved? Please use
examples in your post.

POST
1_____________________________________________
The
President has the power to wage war, which means the act of war. He is
given the power to control the troops. What does this mean? He has
the authority to decide how many military troops are needed for deployment and
where they will be stationed. Article II, section 2 of the Constitution
of the United States specifies the duties and responsibilities of the President
pertaining to the military. It states that “the President shall be
Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, when called into
actual service of the United States” (Modules: Student View, p.5).
Congress

In accordance with Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the Unites
States, Congress has the power to declare war. Additionally, they can
determine the duration of the war by declaring how long they will fund it.
(Modules: Student View, p.3)
Is
the restriction in the War Powers Resolution of 1973 realistic?

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 states that in the case the President deploys
troops without Congress declaring war, the President has to notify them of any
military movement within 48 hours. It also says that troops must be
removed within 60 days, unless Congress approves a longer period.
Even
though the Constitution specifically states the power of the President and
Congress when it comes to war, it is a very controversial topic among
them. This debate began during the Vietnam War when Congress presented
the War Powers Resolution to President Nixon. He did not agree with it
and in return vetoed it. Congress passed it even though the
President disagreed. Some are still against it. Robert F. Turner
from Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law Vol. 45 states that “the
1973 War Powers Resolution was a fraud upon the American people, portrayed as a
legislative fix to fix the problem of “imperial presidents…Sadly, this and
other legislative intrusions upon the constitutional authority of the president
contributed to the loss of millions of lives in places like Cambodia,
Afghanistan, Angola, and Central America” (Turner, 2012). He goes on to
say that the limitations on the President led to the 9/11 attacks, encouraging
Osama bin Laden to attack the United States due to the lack of power from the
President as the Intelligence team was unable to share information that could
have avoided the terrorist attacks (Turner, 2012).
Is
the restriction in the War Powers Resolution realistic?
In
my opinion, the War Powers Resolution was created due to some Presidents
abusing their power. Do I think it is realistic? I am not too familiar
with all the facts, but from what I have read, the War Power Resolution hinders
the President to make decisions in some cases as mentioned above. How can
we solve the problem? Team work, Congress needs to have the President’s
back just as much as the President needs to have Congress’ back. They
need to work together and sometimes agree to disagree. What are your
opinions?

POST 2_____________________________________________________

In the past, there has been a lot of issues between Congress and the Presidents
concerning deploying troops without Congress’s approval. According to the War
Powers Resolution of 1973, the President may make a decision to send troops
abroad in defense but must notify Congress within forty eight hours of the
employment and they must be removed after 60 days if Congress does not agree
with the decision. These rules have not always been followed and have not
always been agreed with.

Why should the president skip over Congress’s approval to send troops abroad
when they are needed? One of the reasons I believe this should be the case is
that if there is an emergency and troops are needed, it takes approximately
forty eight to seventy two hours for the troops to arrive in that conflicted
country. This is a lot of time when there are innocent people at risk and we
shouldn’t have to delay the assistance to make sure Congress is filled in on
the details and feels okay with the decision. For example, troops were just
sent back to Afghanistan and Iraq to assist with the peoples needs of
protection from ISIS and Taliban forces. These forces are killing innocent
civilians to push out the troops and destroy the laws that have been placed for
the protection of the country.

One way to resolve these issues would be starting with the President. If the
President had more military background, then Congress may feel that he is more
able to make these decisions with the strategics of military use and knowledge
of how best the situation could be handled. In conclusion, I think that the
rules and laws set up should be abided by because they were set for a reason. I
know that I do not know all the details of how these things work or why they
are done the way they are. The people who are put in office do have a better
understanding of these things and I am sure they have a reason on why they want
things the way they are. This is just what I believe from the information I am
provided.

Order your essay today and save 30% with the discount code: ESSAYHELP
Order your essay today and save 30% with the discount code: ESSAYHELPOrder Now