[Tallguy]

“My problem with getting into these wars is that we lack the will as a society to do what we have to do to win. If we aren’t going to do what is necessary, we shouldn’t get involved to begin with.”

What you say is, IMO, beyond dispute. The reason for the societal disconnect is that we are fighting wars across the globe that aren’t directly connected to national survival. Our constitutional form requires consent, and every administration since 1945 has sought ways around asking for that consent.

Then you have the institutional problem involved in a return to conditional war: a president asking for a “declaration” pretty much has a bank-check for the duration, and Congress must fund it. Anybody see the egos in Congress giving a formal Declaration these days?

So every war we are treated to a president who refuses to ask permission under The War Powers Act, and a Congress that is secretly glad he didn’t but mouths off all the same.

Rinse & repeat.

[lepton]

every administration since 1945 has sought ways around asking for that consent.

---

More properly, a declaration of war changes the legal system in ways that no President wants to add into the costs of the war. That a President can launch attacks on perceived enemies/threats has been well established since Jefferson - but a Declaration of War is something else, and our education system hasn’t bothered to address that. Think suspension of habeas corpus, death penalty for a variety of crimes, enhanced penalties against military members, and a wide variety of additional controls authorized while under a War Declaration. Really, that is most of what a Declaration of War gets you.

If we decided “Hey, let us take Mexico and keep it”, that would require a declaration of war. If the cartels attack across the border, or even attack Americans in a resort town in Aruba, that is long established (1801) as not requiring a declaration of war.