"presidential power... continued to approve when the Soviet threat and the broader Cold War led to permanent and still underappreciated expansions in the constitutional powers of the president. Rather than fully demobilize, as in past wars, the government maintained a multimillion-person peacetime standing army for the remainder of the Cold War, and in 1947 it established new institutions--including the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the National Security Council--to manage the peacetime military bureaucracy. These and similar institutions concentrated unprecedented authority in the president, which Harry Truman was quick to exercise. Most momentously, in 1950, without congressional authorization or consultation, he dispatched American troops to defend South Korea from North Korean attack and announced his intention to send four divisions (about 100,000 men) to a NATO force in Europe."
Interesting concept. That the power of the president in modern times is linked to the rise of military strength. Had the US demobilized like other wars, would Truman have had the power to move to South Korea? Who Johnson have the power to go into Vietnam? Would Bush had the power to go to Iraq?
Military force, which under the constitution is given to the president from congress. However, this check and balance no longer is needed since the military is at all times "ready for duty" at the call of the president.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
it is funny you should post about a standing army. I have been thinking about this very same thing. not in this sense but in general.
ReplyDeleteI would be inclined to say yes, they would have been able to. My reasoning comes from the civil war because i am currently studying the civil war. Lincoln as able to respond quickly to the attack on Ft Sumpter because, though there was no standing army, there was a small group of federal troops. of course, he relied heavily on volunteers, state militias, and later issued a draft but all of this was without declaring war (for reasons specific to the Civil War). All that to say, at a time when the US had not been involved in full scale war there was still a federal army. I can't imagine that there would have been a complete demobilization after WW2. That means that there would have been enough troops to get started with the conflict, maybe even enough to see it through. The US only sent 480,000 total.
I wrote a post and it didn't post so now i have to write another and it won't be as good, so sorry.
ReplyDeleteI think you are right that after WWII the US would not have demobilized completely. There was a cold war going on for one thing. But had the troops come home and the military fell to numbers that could really only protect the boarders of the US Turman would not have been able to attack korea, therefore limiting his power and keeping him in check with congress. WWII was the last offical war by congress, but the US has constantly been militarly involved all around the world.
What is interesting is the "war on terror", which isn't really a war since congress never declared it. But because of the president's power we are in two countries and are spending close to 1 trillion a year. The "war on terror" is not a traditional war, there is no caoital to take there is no set stepping stones to end the war. Infact the "war on terror" will never end. And that creates a powerful president. Bush is at fault with this, but interestingly enough Obama hasn't done anything to change this power and give it back to congress.
In addition i find it interesting how the "right" seem to be pro-military when the military is so closely linked to the power of the president.
In these days, perhaps it merits a more centralized power to think and act quick when the US is hit. But on the flip side I think the US has proven the old theory, if you have standing army and there is no war, you start looking for one. For all the checks and balances the standing army places the president far ahead of the other two branches, I think.
You have been thinking about standing armies. Whats your thoughts on them?
ReplyDeletewow, sorry i didn't see this post when you wrote it a month ago. But we seem to be in agreement at the end there about looking for wars when we've got a standing army. I think that it is painfully obvious, and unfortunately ignored, that our troops stationed in various countries throughout the world breed contempt for us as a nation. (I can't remember what i mean by "o've been thinking about standing armies" but that might be it.) It surely contribute to the aggression shown against us by "terrorist" nations.
ReplyDeleteI would happily return to a militia system, or national guard, that is ready to deploy or respond when immediate action is necessary and only calling up an army when the circumstances are dire.