While it’s not unusual for congressional Democrats to criticize the president and his decisions (regardless of the outcome), their position in this instance could very well be incorrect.
Given the apparent conflict between these provisions, there has been some confusion as to when the president may act unilaterally and when Congress must first be consulted when it comes to the use of the nation’s military.
“The War Powers Act required the president to notify Congress when he got the US involved in ‘hostilities’ — and then set a 60- to 90-day clock for Congress to approve that action, by passing an authorization of use of military force, or for the president to withdraw from the conflict. It also allowed Congress to pass a concurrent resolution that would force the executive branch to withdraw from any conflict it hasn’t already approved.”As such, based upon these various constitutional provisions and laws, the president is in charge of the armed forces, Congress has the power to declare war, and the president must notify Congress when he has involved the United States in hostilities (pursuant to the War Powers Act).
In light of the foregoing, Pelosi’s argument initially appears fairly strong. What weakens her position, however, is the argument that the recent raid was not a declaration of war and did not constitute “hostilities,” as set forth by the War Powers Act and Article I.
“The gist of this middle-ground view (this is my characterization of it) is that the President can act unilaterally if two conditions are met: (i) the use of force must serve significant national interests that have historically supported such unilateral actions—of which self-defense and protection of U.S. nationals have been the most commonly invoked; and (ii) the operation cannot be anticipated to be ’sufficiently extensive in “nature, scope, and duration” to constitute a “war” requiring prior specific congressional approval under the Declaration of War Clause,‘ a standard that generally will be satisfied ’only by prolonged and substantial military engagements, typically involving exposure of U.S. military personnel to significant risk over a substantial period' (quoting from the Libya opinion).”In other words, the president can act unilaterally if the use of force serves significant national interests and is relatively limited in scope and duration. In this case, the raid in Syria specifically targeted the leader of a terror group who had threatened the United States and was responsible for the death of many innocent people around the world (including in the United States). The raid was also very limited in scope and duration, and no U.S. servicemen were injured or killed in the operation.
While Pelosi and some congressional Democrats will continue to complain about the president’s failure to notify them of the intended raid until after the fact, their complaints may fall on deaf ears. The debate between the president’s Article II powers and the powers granted to Congress under Article I will likely continue, yet the president’s decision in this case appears to fall within his powers under Article II (and past precedent). The raid was directly related to the nation’s national security and interests, limited in scope, and short in duration. It was not a declaration of war.
