The tricky part is the word "war".

War can mean several things.

1. It can mean an emotional commitment -- War on Drugs, War on Poverty. One could include the War on Terrorism in this as terrorism is a tactic.

2. It can mean a legal state as recognized by myriad international laws. It is this legal status that many of the laws address.

3. However, it can also mean military activity not a war. The military often refers to this as OOTW or Operations Other Than War. Having been in the military and having people shoot at me, this distinction is academic in nature only. Legally the unpleasantness in Korea was a police action but to the solders there, it sure seemed like a war.

So before we an address the topic question, we have to be careful which interpretation we are using.

Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution designates the Congress as having the authority to declare war. Using this as the citation for war state number 2, then the question is moot as the President does not have the authority to declare war, only the congress.

But than along came 1973...

Public Law 93-148 dated 7 Nov 73 commonly called "The War Powers Act".

Amongst the mumbo jumbo of this law, there is a provision for the President, under restrictive situations, is allowed to initiate military forces against another state or group providing that the President:

Within 48 hours of the start of military action reports to Congress and provides the following

a. The circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;

b. The constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and

c. The estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

Here is the catch

Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress

(1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces,

(2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or

(3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States.

Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

So the President can use military forces, under specific situations, for a maximum of 60 (90) days before the Congress must either declare war or authorize military action.

Due to the interpretations of some international laws, the formal declaration of war has fallen out of favour these days. This is why the United States has not been legally "at war" since 1945.

So as long as there is no use of Military forces, the "emotional" definition of war is open to the President without restriction.

The Legal state of war can only be declared by the US Congress.

OOTW can be initiated for a maximum of 60 days (90 in case of extreme situation) before Congress either

1. Stops the activity and orders the recall of military forces
2. Formally declares war
3. Authorizes military OOTW

At one point in time during the war in Iraq almost half of the troops were from the reserves ... they have served and continue to serve.

Google: http://www.google.com/search?q=reser...x=&startPage=1

Aug 26, 2007 ... Acevedo said sending more troops to Iraq would be a costly blunder. "By increasing the number of National Guard and reserve troops, ...-

The movement of a brigade comes as officials have raised doubts about possi


Feb 1, 2007 ... Previously, reserve troops in Iraq typically served 18 months on active duty: six months in pre-deployment training and 12 months on the ...

In a sign that the United States military is being stretched to the limit to sustain is open-ended occupation of Iraq, the US Army last Friday ordered about ...


Feb 12, 2008 ... At certain times in 2005, members of the Guard and Reserve made up nearly half the troops fighting in Iraq. Overall, they were nearly 28 ...


Feb 12, 2008 ... Washington - National Guard and Reserve troops who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan make up more than half of veterans who committed ...


The Air Force has had the highest percentage of reserve troops deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq. From Sept 2001 - Jan 2005, 33 percent of all Air Force ...

I think you got my idea i was after, despite your explicit explanation, didn't you. ;)

The point is that ALL US reserve units are based at home until, like the National Guard, they are ordered to active Federal service overseas.

Their pay is from the Federal Government, their uniforms say "US Army", "US Airforce", "US Navy" or "USMC", their officers hold Federal Commissions and their oaths are to defend the Constitution of the United States of America as opposed to a particular US state or commonwealth.

They are Federal troops as much as the regular military and anyone who claims they are places to shirk dangerous service defames their achievements and insults their valuable service to the nation. :nope:

They are pretty good at giving themselves pay raises!:nope:

:D Yeah for those they'll even pull an all nighter hoping to catch the electorate asleep...

I see a bunch of yes's in your poll! Strange, but the one war everyone is complaining about, Congress still put its rubber stamp on it, so we can see how effective this policy would be if it were in place!

-S

On the other hand even if you're right what could it hurt?

I think its a great formality, but not a neccesary one.

-S

I think it could hurt a lot.

Congress and the President might actually have to talk to each other!

Are you really sure that anyone would want to talk to this Congress? They are the biggest waste of hot air in a Century! They can't accomplish squat! Probably better that things stay with the pres in the case of this pathetic Congress!

-S

I agree with what you said earlier SUBMAN. Fire the lot of them and start over. Let's see if we can get everyone to vote against who ever is currently in office this November :hmm:.

A good political platform is "when in doubt, vote em out!"

:yep:

I don't take sides. You hate the congress. Others hate the president. Nothing has changed in the last 219 years. The country is going to hell in a handbasket - ask either side.