However, the prerogatives of the presidential office give him this possibility. In this sense, his quality as commander in chef of the armed forces enables him to wage war without the approval of the Congress. Also, the first war in Iraq represented a good precedent for the authority of the President to go to war. Finally, another element that were used as justification for the intervention in Iraq without congressional approval is the Congress's resolution discussing the intervention against terrorism. In this sense, "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons" (Authorizing Use of Force 09-14-01, 2001). Therefore, these can be considered as having been the arguments invoked for the President to go to war in Iraq without the approval of the Congress.
The public opinion is an important factor in the United States for the political power it holds. In this sense, the power of the individual vote is essential for the politicians. However, at the time of the U.S. intervention in Iraq, the polls supported this action and offered the legitimacy to wage war, despite the fact that democratically speaking, it was a breach of the Constitution. On the other hand, the Congress can also limit the powers of the president by a joint resolution against the actions undergone by the president. However, this disequilibrium rarely occurs. This is why the Congress encounters some of the most interesting debates in politics.
The United Nations, as part of the international system has a limited means of preventing military actions against another state. All the states...
In this sense, they also benefit from an intrinsic attribute of sovereignty, the right to self-defense; this right offers them the possibility to defend themselves from a violent attack without breaching the international law. Therefore, the United States appealed to the right to collective self-defense against terrorism when invading Iraq. However, despite the fact that the United States did not receive the agreement of the United Nations, the UN was not able to prevent the U.S. led intervention.
Overall, it can be said that the United States has largely benefited from the democratic infrastructure its Constitution created. However, the presidential powers became more and more extended and limited the powers of the Congress and created a sense of disequilibrium between the presidential and the congressional institutions. Also, inside the American society, it is rather hard to ascertain the degree in which the public opinion and the legislative body can actually influence the decision of the president. Finally, the United Nations, despite the fact that it is a global player on the international scene, is limited in its possibilities to prevent war and foreign interventions.
Bibliography
Authorizing Use of Force 09-14-01. U.S. Government info. 2001. 25 February 2008. http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blsjres23.htm
Ehrhart, W.D. "The Authority to Declare War." Intervention Magazine. 2003. 25 February 2008. http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=335
Lithwick, Dahlia. "What War Powers Does the President Have?" Slate. 2001. 25 February 2008. http://www.slate.com/id/1008290
War Power Resolution. Findlaw.com 2008. 25 February 2008 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/33/sections/section_1541.html
