Flexible police and military responses have nothing to do with a formal declaration of war though. We managed to retake the Falkland Islands without a formal declaration of war.
In reality it would always be difficult for a Prime Minister to declare a war without the support of Parliament. All this move really does is formalise the precedent set by Tony Blair’s debate and formal vote in the House of Commons prior to the Iraq invasion.
Don’t get me wrong, though I think allowing the legislative
bodies who are generally more representative of their districts a direct say in the need for war making is generally a good thing. I just hope their learning curve in handling their new powers isn’t too steep if these powers have to be quickly brought to bear on lets say a major terrorist nuclear attack!
But about Brown's proposed surrender of war powers to Parliament, think about it! The power to declare WAR should not rest in the hands of one person, for history repeatedly has shown that nations have suffered the deaths of countless of its citizens and also the huge financial burdens of unnecessary wars, just to satisfy the vanity, false pride and/or excessive ego of one unbalanced leader. NO, let such an enormous decision be made by many people, not just one.
Remember the wisdom provided in the U.S. Constitution that REQUIRES war to be declared by Congress, NOT the President. Events of the past 15 years unequivocally show the sorry results of letting one man make that decision.
Granted, most all U.S. Senators and Representatives have violated their oath of office and ignored their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution in respect to this principle (to their eternal damnation), but the principle is sound, even though the congressmen show they are not.