War? What war?
The White House, pushing hard against criticism in Congress over the deepening air war in Libya, asserted Wednesday that President Obama had the authority to continue the military campaign without Congressional approval because American involvement fell short of full-blown hostilities.
[. . .]
In contending that the limited American role did not oblige the administration to ask for authorization under the War Powers Resolution, the report asserted that “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.”
So, a war is "full-blown hostilities." Anything less is, well, whatever a president wants to call it so he doesn't have to deal with the War Powers Act, Congress or that pesky Constitution. In Korea, which was the first major undeclared war in this nation's history, no matter what anybody said at the time, it was "police action." Then in Vietnam, we had "combat advisers" who weren't really fighting; they were just helping the Vietnames be better soldiers. But, hey, if you're in a hostile environment, things happen, and you have to defend yourself.
It was Vietnam that led to the War Powers Act. If it has become too difficult or politically risky to actually declare war, then let's set up a mechanism for Congress to authorize a war that's already under way. Now, the executive branch has come up with "kinetic military action" and doesn't even bother with that the ex post facto permission. The legislative-exutive conflict is understandable given that the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war but makes the president commander-in-chief. That doesn't mean we haven't reached a dangerous and reckless point.
