Just a simple question:

Why didn't President George W. Bush ask the Congress for a declaration of war?

I'm not as well-informed as I would like to be...Would somebody please fill me in as to why he evidently wanted to take upon himself the authority to wage war?

What benefits were there in not having the representatives of the American people make the decision?

My pre-coffee, off the cuff guess is this:
Concerning the overall war on terror, a declaration of war would technically have to be tendered against a state or similar entity. I don't think that a lack of a declaration makes the fight against AQ any less valid, but it's a legal and technical stretch to sign an actual declaration against a vague and shadowy group.

Concerning the war in Iraq, legally I believe it to be an extension of the cease fire terms at the close of Operation Desert Storm. Whether or not you agree with going into Iraq or the reasons given, I think that it can be argued we had the necessary avenues available to us to go in .

I think what you see is the real achilles heel of our political system- ours being one of the oldest representitive democracies-

we don't have a real system of REAL accountability of the party in power like a parlimentary system-

I think, one lesson political strategists learned from the Clinton persecution is to avoid responsibility or allow an issue to be pinned on you in any way-

The way GW went about it (or Rove if you will) was able to deflect responsibility on solely the administration by the side-step vote on Iraq prior to the invasion- I know alot of lawmakers got caught up in that web that wish they had not voted as they had at the time- but it is the way the system works.

It is issues like this were I think a parliamentary system is superior- you can take credit or blame because your party made the ultimate decision in the end- which, I think is more ethical in the long run.

Don't take that idea to mean I 100% support the Euro-type lawmaker system vs ours- it is just a weakness in our own system that I think that makes this kind of political games-manship advantagous to the party in power.

I think a large number of lawmakers would have balked at an outright declaration of war- and, in a rare concesion to this regimes decision making proccess- maybe this was a former staffer in the Admin before it was ALL yes men - perhaps Colin Powell pointed out the strategy of NOT declaring war might be recieved more sympathetically by the muslim goverments surrounding Iraq- hard to say on that one!

Why didn't President George W. Bush ask the Congress for a declaration of war?

You must be talking about Iraq since you really can't declare war on non-state entities like terrorists (or militant Islam).

The justification for the Iraq war from a legal standpoint was a violation of the ceasefire agreement in UNSC Resolution 687: link. 687 was passed under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter (the Charter which covers threats to the peace) and does not revoke Resolution 678 authorization of all means necessary.

If you remember, Operation Desert Storm in 1990 had no declaration of war against Iraq either. George HW Bush went to the UN instead of to Congress to get authorization to attack Iraq.

In fact, Iraq was found to be in violation of the ceasefire as early as 1992. It was found to be in "flagrant violation" in 1998 (Resolution 1205). Resolution 1441 link again states that Iraq has failed to comply with 687 (the cease fire Resolution). 1441 declares Iraq to be in "material breach" of the cease fire agreement. It demanded an up-to-date accounting of Iraq's weaponry (which ended up being incomplete and inaccurate) and "Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations".

Material breach of a ceasefire results in resumption of hostilities.

Hereis a nice write up of the justification of war from a legal standpoint.

Here is the White House's explanation.

Amlord is undoubtedly correct re the "legal" answer to your question. CruisingRam is also undoubtedly correct re the "practical" answer to your question, i.e., if our position is that we were not going to war with your average Iraqi but merely Saddam & Co., then no reason that I can see to declare war on any and all Iraqis, and to true or not [I would like to believe that it was and is true], that is what plays best [or better] on the Arab/Muslim street.

For that matter, we didn't have a declaration of war in either Korea or Vietnam.

My guess is that presidents think--and are probably correct in thinking--that Congress will authorize military force when it might balk at a formal declaration of war.

There's one other factor that has only been alluded to...

The last time the United States of America issued a formal declaration of war, we went to "total war". A "limited war" intrinsically has limits on the levels of force that we will use.

What limits of force, short of the use of atomics, have we imposed on this limited, undeclared war?

I may be reading a different Constitution than Bikerdad but my copy is quite specific about war powers.

Article I, Section 8, clause 11 gives Congress the power to declare war....

No mention is made of "limited" or 'Unlimited" or "total" war.

It amazes me that people who take a Scalia like a approach to the Constitution fault the courts for finding a right to privacy in the Constitution, but allow Bush and other presidents to conduct war without a formal declaration.

These two statements go together, I think. Only Congress has the power to declare war, but the President is authorized to use force to defend the country. So, its easier to authorize the force than to actually declare war. Congress is all too happy with this arrangement, since they're not then the ones on the hook for the outcome.


My 2 cents is that the rules on this should be tighter, and that we should only be allowed very limited use of force without a declaration of war. Korea and Vietnam are excellent examples of this--even textbooks talk about the Korean and Vietnam wars, although technically no such state existed. Sure, it creates a political dilemma...this is as it should be. Use of military force should not be taken lightly...if the need isn't great enough to get Congress to declare war, then perhaps it shouldn't be used.

-fixed quotes. Amlord

It amazes me even more that people who believe in a "living Constitution" are so anal retentive about a declaration of war. Especially when given that technology has resulted in tremendous changes in the very nature of war, in its speed and scope. This is a marked contrast to, say, how techonology has changed the nature of religious freedom. The difference, of course, between the originalists is they at least have a some legs to stand on with regards to the current situation. First, we can't "declare war" on the terrorists because they are stateless actors. Second, there's was no requirement to declare war on Iraq prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom because it was a resumption of hostilities pursuant to the cease-fire.

Now, that said, I do believe we would have been better served had Congress had the non-medical term for anatomy to say to President Bush, "No, not without a formal declaration of war" for both the Afghanistan invasion and Iraqi Freedom, but I don't believe it was necessary. Furthermore, and this is the most important part: the authority to declare war rests with Congress. It is also their responsibility to protect their own authority. Bush has secured authorization from Congress for all military operations in question here.



hmmm, lets consider this: When the troops rolled into Bagdhad, did it look anything like Dresden in 1945? As they conducted the most rapid advance in the annals of warfare, did they leave a swath of Shermanesque devastation in their wake? Have we mobilized ourselves onto a wartime footing?

In Iraq, we have limited ourselves tremendously. Even though we are fighting an opponent with a strong religious motivation, we have not obliterated every mosque in the country. We use expensive smart weapons in order to limit civilian casualties, rather than carpet bombing areas back to the stone age with dumb bombs.

Total war is the modern term for the targeting of civilians and the mobilization of an entire society; when every member of the society has to contribute to the war effort. - Wikipedia

Why didn't President George W. Bush ask the Congress for a declaration of war?
The simple answer is that Bush would have been forced to get more support from the American people and the International community. When he started the war,
about 55 percent of the American people supported the war; not really the overwhelming support a Government would need if it were going to wage a long war.

A Declaration of War would have probably would have put some precise limits on the how Bush could use military force, along with terms for an exit strategy. Bush had some secret reasons for attacking Iraq and therefore had to come up with different excuses for waging war. Imagine a declaration of war stating that the United States should withdraw Iraq after the oil refineries were operating at full capacity again.

That is plain wrong in my opinion. As far as I know there has never been any mentioning of an exit strategy in a declaration of war. What use would that have for the declaring party? It would limit it's action in precisely the way you mentioned and therefore be a disadvantage for the conduct of warfare. The same for "precise limits on [...] the use of military force". Why would there be formal limits for the use of certain weapons? The limits are given by efficiency criteria. The use of surgical strikes has a lot better legitimacy at home and abroad than carpet bombing entire cities.


I can't imagine what that action would have caused in world opinion. Although, bikerdad, let us not forget Falludjah, where urban warfare flattened the entire city in an effort of "making an example" as well as the use of napalm and uranium-enriched weaponry. If it helps to speed the process along, most weapons will be used.