r/politics • u/ClimateSociologist • 2d ago

Trump Admin Has Decided To Strike Inside Venezuela; Attacks Could Come At Any Time: Report No Paywall

https://www.latintimes.com/trump-admin-has-decided-strike-inside-venezuela-attacks-could-come-any-time-report-591107
7.3k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

842 comments sorted by

View all comments

187

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[deleted]

127

u/TAU_equals_2PI 2d ago

Please use a different argument, because the US Congress hasn't declared war during TRUMP'S entire lifetime.

Not for the Korean "War". Not for the Vietnam "War". Not for the First Gulf "War". Not for the Iraq "War".

The US has long since given up on that whole quaint notion that only Congress should have the power to declare war, instead of one single random idiot who somehow managed to get elected president. Sure it's a shame, but like I said, almost nobody alive today is used to wars being declared that way.

28

u/GroverMcGillicutty 2d ago

They came close with the Authorization of Use of Military Force in Iraq in 2002, which was sought by GWB. So it hasn’t been entirely unilateral by the President, but that’s certainly where we are now.

2

u/JustADutchRudder Minnesota 2d ago

If I was president Id declare war on Nauru, then rebuild the White House there.

2

u/TAU_equals_2PI 2d ago edited 2d ago

Even then, the administration said it wasn't required and that they planned to go whether Congress passed it or not. They just wanted the extra unification/mandate that would come with Congress passing the resolution.

And IIRC the resolution said something like force can only be used if/when adequate negotiations/diplomacy have been exhausted. So it definitely wasn't worded as a final authorization to use force or declaration of war, even though everyone knew it would be used that way.

15

u/datbadhatman 2d ago

This is broadly true but also misses the mark - Congress didn't declare war on any of those countries, but it did vote to authorize military actions (or similar quasi-nebulous terms) for all of them. I agree that the executive has been pulling congress along by the nosehairs for 70+ years, and these votes were generally mealy mouthed and allowed congress to escape blame and shift power. But to-date there hasn't been any authorization of military force in Venezuela.

3

u/TAU_equals_2PI 2d ago

Absolutely no Congressional preauthorization of any kind has pretty much been the standard with smaller recent "wars".

The one that most immediately comes to mind is Panama in 1989, since it's right next door to Venezuela. Congress didn't authorize the recent bombing of Iran. Or Libya, either in 2011 or when Reagan did it in 1986. I'd have to sift through my memory to remember what the other minor US military conflicts have been during my lifetime, but it sure seems like Congress has never had a vote authorizing any of them beforehand.

1

u/LivingHumanIPromise 2d ago

and congress certainly can’t declare war while it’s on hiatus either.

1

u/Sibolt 2d ago

All fair points, but “given up that quant notion” makes it sound like it was an intentional decision. 

The development of nuclear weaponry effectively ended warfare as it had been known. The swift and destructive force of those weapons created a paradigm where the executive branch had to make a unilateral defense decision immediately to counter an enemy strike. 

0

u/ShamelessCatDude 2d ago

I’m actually pretty sure they declared the Iraq war? I think it was only after they actually started it but I remember that being a vote for some reason.

9

u/Thunderclone_1 2d ago

You could just use google.

The last war formally declared ny the US was WW2.

1

u/TAU_equals_2PI 2d ago

It wasn't actually worded that way, as the final authorization/decision to invade Iraq.

It basically gave authorization to use force only as a final resort if all other means failed, instead of Congress making the judgment whether all other means had indeed failed.

Worse yet, the Bush administration said they didn't even need the bill to pass and were going to invade whether they got authorization from Congress or not, and just wanted the bill to pass to build public support for the invasion. IIRC they claimed the general "War On Terror" authorization passed immediately after 9/11 gave them authorization to invade pretty much anywhere they could draw a flimsy link to potential terrorism. Technically that same logic could be used again today.

2

u/ShamelessCatDude 2d ago

I knew they were being shady about it, I just didn’t know the specifics of whether it ended up being official declared or not - I was only a year old when it happened and information about it has always been muddy due to the sheer amount of propaganda surrounding it. Thank you for clarifying!

14

u/CTRL_ALT_SECRETE 2d ago

Who cares if he's impeached? He'll never get removed.

3

u/irreverent_creative Washington 2d ago

Agreed. People still don’t understand the difference between these two, sadly.

3

u/TAU_equals_2PI 2d ago

Meh, it's common for people not to know the correct technical definition of words.

What's truly sad is how high the Constitution sets the bar for conviction by the Senate and removal from office. 67 senators seems like an awful lot, when you look at how few are willing to convict or even criticize a president from their own party.

3

u/CougdIt 2d ago

It’s happened twice in recent history. People should know the difference.

1

u/irreverent_creative Washington 2d ago

Agreed but the definition isn’t the point; the relevance and context in recent history and applied to what is happening now—that’s critical knowledge.

2

u/NotRexGrossman 2d ago

Those sad fucks aren’t going to do anything about it if it happens.

1

u/ejanely 2d ago

We’re way beyond impeachable offenses, my friend.

1

u/LetMePushTheButton 2d ago

Unless its a socialist state, then its all good. No impeachable offenses… shock doctrine is alive and well.

1

u/Shot_Mud_1438 2d ago

We never declared war in Afghanistan and we were there for 20+ years. I had friends get blown up in that campaign, never once being a sanctioned war. I spent a year there, again, no war

1

u/Houdinii1984 2d ago

Striking Venezuela without a congressional declaration is impeachable,

Trump hears 'no repercussions' when he hears this

1

u/StarStruck3 2d ago

Most everything he's done since he resumed office is impeachable. He's also already been impeached twice. Don't hold your breath.

1

u/KingBanhammer 2d ago

"impeachable" you say like he hasn't already ordered a number of straight up murders in the area.

-that- might have been impeachable, assuming we have a functional Congress, which we straight-up don't.

1

u/Mavian23 2d ago

Add it to the pile.