Congress can declare war, but the president controls the armed forces. Why then does the President send troops to other countries and starts a "war" without Congress' declaration? What can Congress do?
125326
Congress controls the money -- should a president ever do such a thing (and it has not happened), they could withold all funding for the military.
61687
War can only be declared on a recognized country.  Since Al-Qaeda is not a country, we have not done that.  We did declare war on Afghanistan when the Taliban were there and supporting Al-Qaeda.  We won and Taliban has been pushed out of power in Afghanistan.
490928
There are three branches of the government in the U.S.\n1. Executive Branch- this is the president, and his hand- picked cabinet; they usually agree with him on most issues.\n2. Legislative Branch- this is Congress. Congress is The House of Representatives, and The Senate. If the president wants to pass a law, it has to get the majority or 2/3 of the votes in Congress. When the opposite party is in power in Congress, this limits the President's power significantly. Also, if Congress wants to pass a law, the President can veto it if he chooses.\n3. Judicial Branch- this is the courts sytem; The U.S. Supreme Court is the head of this Branch. The Chief Justices decide on many things, but most importantly, they can decide what IS and what ISN'T Constitutional. The President nominates someone for a position in The Supreme Court, but Congress has to approve of his nomination. Of course he usually chooses someone who is sympathetic to his agenda.\nRight now, the Democrats have nearly won control of Congress,\nthis will limit George W. Bush's power, because they will oppose him on most issues. He is a Republican.
465465
I must say the teacher who dumped this on you has a funny idea of American politics.  But nevermind.\n\nThe only one that might fail to explain why the president is responsible for being a strong leader would be "the weakness of Congress."  Congress is not actually weak.  Bungling, self-interested, possibly even corrupt, but not really weak.
46049
The biggest thing they can do is not authorize any treaties or agreements he makes.  Whenever a treaty is negotiated by the Administration, it has to be approved by Congress.  If they fail to ratify his agreements, then it's not policy.
476693
A is accurate. Under the articles, there was no president or courts, only a congress with the power to make war & peace, maintain an army & navy but couldn't colect taxes. The states retained their sovreignity and regulated commerce themselves.
670875
Politics makes war go on and on.  We should go in and get the job done but our government leader have to many agendas.  The US is a world leader but not the only one. Our government is trying to make every one happy which makes the war continue. Contact your congressman and tell them to get the job done now. We don't need another Vietnam.  That was a war that politic made us lose.  Powerful money people that support the war with supplies are another reason for the war to continue.  They lobby congress and congress fails to do the right thing.  Let our men and women do the job they were trained for and then we can finish this conflict quickly.
391730
The President (as was his dad) is a firm believer in the "new world order" or globalism.  Statistics show that republics (there are no democracies that I know of) rarely go to war with each other.  So the idea is to rid the Middle East, an area vital to every developed country in the world because the world economy runs on oil, of dictatorships.  The resulting peace (as envisioned) would mean everyone would have access to the oil that is priced by the free market benefiting the whole world.  Unfortunately, the studies only looked at developed republics.  New, unprepared republics are apparently more likely to go to war or to hold the world hostage then even dictatorships.\n\nIf this is a college research effort, I strongly recommend that you do not rely on undocumented statements (such as my own) and actually do the research.  One source your library may have that is good is the journal "Foreign Affairs" (www.foreignaffairs.org) by the Council on Foreign Relations (www.cfr.org).  Use multiple sources so you can get a more complete picture and make your own opinions based on your research.  The skills you develop doing this will benefit you through your whole life.
633493
War is a little more complicated than you imagine.\n\nIt almost seems funny to see movies depicting war during our Revolutionary period.  Men would stand in a line and wait their turn to fire a shot.  Opposing generals would have elegant lunches with one another and discuss the fine points of how the battle should be waged in a civilized manner, and at what time they should begin.\n\nWar has always had a military code of behavior.  For example, if you surrender, you are supposed to be guaranteed medical attention to treat your wounds, food, and treatment that befits a person of your rank in the army.  If you surrender, the enemy is bound by internationally recognized military codes of ethics.  They cannot say, "Oh, it's too much bother to imprison you.  We'll just shoot you now and get it over with".\n\nWhen Bill O'Reilly talks about insurgents killing women and children, he is talking about a severe breach in the rules of military engagement.  Soldiers are only supposed to fight one another.  Civilians are off limits.  Wars are fought to make it impossible for the enemy to continue fighting.  The general population of a country is not part of the fighting force.  As long as they do not fight, they cannot be charged with war crimes.\n\nIt may sound funny to you, but if there was no exercise of self-restraint in war, it would be complete chaos and barbarism.  If everyone participated in the fighting, how could one side offer a truce, or surrender?  How could one army lay down its arms if there was no assurance they would not be slaughtered once they gave up their weapons?\n\nDo you know why we can't negotiate with terrorists?  Because they do not owe their allegiance to any single government.  If we wanted to make a deal with the terrorists, who could enforce the terms of the deal?   Who would be authorized to speak on behalf of the terrorists?  It just doesn't work this way in the real world.\n\nBill O'Reilly has a great book for kids.  I hope you will read it, and I hope you continue your interest in politics.  The world needs young people as inquisitive and as interested in world events as you are.
438204
Yes, I know the difference. Does our president is the question. There was the invasion of Normandy during the second world war, operation Overlord. A valid invasion in the course of a declared war. What our president did when he sent our troops to invade Iraq was an act of war, as it is anytime a country invades another country without declaring war. Saddam wanted Kuwait's oil. Bush can't find Osama, so this was a diversion to placate America after 9/11, and just like Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and George's of Iraq, many innocent people were and continue to be killed.
390671
A respectful question deserves a respectful answer.\n\nCongress (not the President alone) should declare war when another country poses a *clear* threat to the U.S. through direct provocation.  There are also times when the U.S. can come to the aid of an ally when it is directly attacked, but these times are limited to when the U.S. cannot assist the ally in other ways.\n\nSo responding to 9/11 with an attack on Afghanistan *was* justfied, because they specifically harbored the perpetrators of an act of war on the U.S. (Al Qaeda).\n\nAnd attacking Saddam when he went outside his borders and attacked Kuwait, was also arguably justified as a defense of an ally.  I.e. an international breach is occasion for the U.S. to consider involving itself (I'm not as much in agreement with this stance as other people ... but I understand the argument).\n\nWhat is indefensible is attacking a country, like we did Iraq, when (1) that country was specifically trying to stay out of our way, (2) there was no proof of direct threat against the United States (either the weapons, or the way to deliver them), and (3) Saddam was not crossing outside his borders.\n\nIt is counterproductive to attack another country without provocation, because it undermines the message "if you mess with the U.S., you will get hammered" by sending the message "even if you *don't* mess with the U.S., you will get hammered" ... i.e. it sends the message, "what you do doesn't matter anyway ... so you should attack us whenever you get the chance."\n\nWhat would I have done differently?  Stay the course ... in *Afghanistan* until Bin Laden and Al Qaeda was captured or dead ... and then withdraw, but give strong financial and weapons support to the replacement government.  That would have sent the clear message ... "our only beef is with Al Qaeda."  Not only would the world (including the Arab world) understand our reasons, but they would have continued to support us in this (as they did during the Afghanistan invasion).  Instead, declaring a "war on terror" was a terrible idea ... as it sent the message to the world "we don't really know *who* we're fighting ... so it could be YOU."  So it simultaneously narrowed the definitions of who our allies are, while broadening the definition of who our enemies are.\n\nThere is a reason the founders put *Congress* in charge of declaring war ... because an act of war has to be an act of a nation *against another nation*.  Congress can't declare a "war on terror", because it can't identify the nation it is at war with.\n\nAs far as Iraq, the weapons inspections turned out to be working just fine ... the reason they couldn't find any WMDs is *because there weren't any*.  Saddam was a paper tiger as far as threatening the rest of the region outside Iraq ... but *Iran* didn't know that.  So Saddam was keeping  islamic militants in check.
635275
it's not a war, only congress can declare that.
449840
They serve until their term is over. If they served until the war was over every President would start a war near the end of their term.
321831
YOU'D PROBABLY SEE ANOTHER 5 STAR GENERAL IF AMERICA WOULD ACTUALLY DECLARE A WAR.  AMERICA HASN'T DECLARED AN ACTUAL WAR IN 65 YEARS.  ALL THE REST HAVE BEEN 'CONFLICTS'.
94865
A better question would be to ask why the government of the United States sends the US military into other countries in peacekeeping roles (Bosnia, for example) while the countries in the area - who's own best interests would be served by not having their neighbor self-destruct - do nothing.
29560
Congress is the only branch of government that can actually make laws regarding immigration and naturalization (Article I, Section 8, Subsection 4.\n\nHowever, the Supreme Court can determine that the law they pass is unconstitutional and toss it or determine to grant certain rights to non-citizens.  The Exectuive Branch can recommend rules, or decide not to enforce one if they don't like it.  The states can pass laws granting rights and privledges to illegals or other non-citizens.\n\nBut to the specific question, it is Congress and Congress alone that holds that power under the Constitution.
563352
There's a fundamental weakness in your question that most of those answering don't get or see.  It's that this isn't a Congressionally sanctioned war...Congress never Declared War on Iraq therefore the governance of Gitmo is purely for the Bush, of the Bush, and by the Bush regardless of how the Supremes rule.  I for one applaud the ruling but without that Congressional Declaration of War its a moot point.\n\nSo far as three branches of government go, we've got em...know that Congress didn't directly sanction Bush's actions by Declaring War officially.  And the Supremes ruled against him despite not having official jurisdiction for the same reason.