Seems fairly clear, doesn't it. The President shall be commander in chief...not the people directly, not the Congress, not the pollsters, not the protesters, not the Press.
The President.
Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
...To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
...
The above are the War Powers of Congress assembled. No where in this document does it state that the Congress shall have authority to deploy (or redeploy) or command the Armed Forces of the united States - the Legislature is responsible for raising and supporting armies (paying and equipping them, setting appropriate force levels for the Federal Army as a whole), but the Executive is responsible for their actions, once the use of force has been authorized.
Historically, the unwritten portion of the Constitution has provided that the Navy belongs to the President to deploy as needed and that the Army belongs to the Congress. Once action is authorized, or war is declared, the responsibility of the Congress is to properly fund and equip the forces unleashed. The President, through the Secretary of Defense and the service Secretaries, is responsible for deployment and use in the field. Overall, this system has served us fairly well until quite recently.
While certain august personages, most notably Ms Nancy and Dirty Harry Reid, amongst many others seem to thing there is a mandate for departure from Iraq or that they (and their fellow travellers in the media) are to be consulted on tactical decisions. They are not, nor is the public at large, for despite any verbiage to the contrary, we do not live in a democracy. Our Founding Fathers were quite clear about that as well: this is a REPUBLIC (representative citizenry). Stipulated, the property owners wanted to maintain political power in those who were deemed to have a vested (property) interest in the area they were representing so they limited the Federal franchise to property owners. While I may agree with the spread of the franchise to more electors, selecting bodies over 18 years and with a body temp of around 37C (98.6F) seems a bit much. At least the authors of the Constitution wanted some symbol of responsibility and concern for the community to be demonstrated by those to whom the franchise was entrusted. They were adamantly against warm body democracy, just as fearful of the tyranny of the minority as that of the majority.
What about 'war powers?' you may ask. Remember that War Powers was enacted by a Democrat Congress to spank a Republican President who escalated an unpopular war by authorizing the bombing of enemy sanctuaries in a putatively neutral country. Was Nixon's action illegal? I don't know, though I am sure it can be argued either way. Was it tactically sound? Probably and as such was technically within his authority. Was Congress out of line? By the strictest interpretation of the section above, probably not. However, War Powers is a Constitutional question of no small complexity that neither side wants to put in front of the Court. And that's just fine with me.
OK, for those who would argue that this is an 'illegal war,' define the legality of it. "Congress did not decalre war!" True enough, but the language of the resolution authorizing the President to use whatever force necessary, as well as the UN resolutions and the cease-fire of 1991 did. Would a specific declaration have been better? Of course it would. Unfortunately, realpolitik in the current US precluded that.
While President Bush would have preferred an actual declaration of war, both immediately after 9/11 and in 2003, he was well aware that he would never receive it. The Senate would have fillibustered any such declaration. The Constitutionality of which is open - the language states that Congress (House? Senate? Both?) shall have the power to declare war, not the Legislature which term does mean both Houses assembled. Face it, we are under attack by an external enemy that wants to destroy our way of life and impose his own. And at the same time, the Congress is full of people whose only interest seems to be the continuation of their personal power.
To bad, the Republic was great while it lasted. Long live the Empire!
(God help us if we become the People's Republic...)
