Isn't an act of congress required for this, in the US?
_We_ do special operations, interventions, liberations, preventive strikes, weapon destructions.
Today Congressmen's main job is soliciting bribes. I expect they want their name on as few pieces of paper connecting them to a conflict as possible. They are not in charge of the government.
Interesting. Bombing Muslim-majority countries seems to be accepted exception?
Use of military force requires congressional approval.
Well, in principle. In practice, the US executive does not observe this restriction, or at most - makes a flimsy connection the 2001 AUMF following the twin towers attack. The courts do not enjoin it from using military force pretty much arbitraly; and congress does not impeach nor even adopt declarative denunciations of this behavior.
By anyone. The world over.
If you're seriously saying this isn't war, bombing Iran, you're just engaging in willfull self deception at this point.
If this isn’t an act of war then nothing is. And that’s a terrifying thought because that means a single person can start a war without congressional approval. Even impeachment doesn’t help prevent war since it’s after the fact.
What happens if a president orders strikes on a friendly country? It could be due to dementia, narcissistic personality disorder, personal vendettas (hypothetically, in real life I trust the US wouldnt elect that kind of person).
In fact, it may never have actually existed.
Yes, but when only when you really need to go to a full wartime economy. Otherwise is just business as usual.
The War Powers Act of 1973 was approved literally to avoid it happening in the future.
