3. Who would send troops into battle?

We must also determine who can send troops into battle under our Collaborative Democracy. Two types of military actions have occurred historically, those during a declared war and those without. In Nov. 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution for emergency military situations, requiring the President "in every possible instance" to "consult with Congress before introducing U.S. Armed Forces into situations of hostilities and imminent hostilities." (Congress wanted to avoid another Vietnam War, declared or not.) Otherwise, the President must notify Congress within 48 hours of committing troops abroad. In addition, Congress must approve the deployment if troops are to remain beyond 60 days. In the 38 years between 1974 and 2012, Presidents sent 136 reports to Congress regarding actions taken in Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Central America, and Europe. However, very little advance consultation was performed. [33]

Historically, there appear to be six major situations causing a President to send troops, military equipment, or other aid to foreign countries outside of a declaration of war.

1. To defend US interests and citizens who are under threat or attack.

2. To fight terrorism against the US in foreign countries such as Afghanistan.

3. To defend countries who are under attack with whom we have a mutual defense treaty such as NATO.

4. To participate in "police actions" as part of a combined United Nations force such as the defense of South Korea and South Vietnam.

5. To gain the favor of countries with whom we do not have any defense treaties.

6. To overthrow foreign governments and to effect political regime change.

Some feel that the rise of global terrorism continues to justify the commander in chief role of the President. The war on terrorism has become a huge industry. The Washington Post published the size of our anti-terrorism efforts in 2010. [34]

Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States. An estimated 854,000 people hold top-secret security clearances. In Washington and the surrounding area, thirty-three building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2001.

Immediate threat, attack, or terrorist action

The urgency and secrecy of immediate military or terrorist threats or attacks would suggest that the decision should be made by a Federal Council, not by the people. The US Department of Defense provides the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of the United States. The Secretary of Defense heads the Department of Defense on the President's Cabinet and advises the President regarding proposed actions.

I recommend that the Council of Defense, the Council of State, and the Presidential Council make the decision together as a council of 27 to send troops when there is an immediate threat as they do when approving classified projects to ensure coordination of leadership and different perspectives.

All other actions committing troops

The remaining actions that commit troops to conflict situations are known in advance, whether to declare war, to defend another county or to influence their politics. These are all critical, complex decisions that should be made by the people, not by the political parties and a few people in the government.

It is clear from their behavior and statements that all past Presidents since 1973 have felt they were not subject to the War Powers Resolution regarding sharing decision authority with Congress. Every President felt that the decision should be made as all-powerful individuals.

Congress, on the other hand, does not trust the President with the decision except for a short-term crisis. They deemed the War Powers Resolution so important that when Nixon vetoed the resolution, Congress overrode the veto and enacted it anyway. Congress has taken past Presidents to court to force their cooperation, but the Supreme Court has refused to hear their cases. [35] Congress believes that such military decisions should be made by a much larger group of people, just as Congress is the only branch authorized to declare war. If the action is an emergency response, then Congress believes that they must approve the action for it to continue beyond 60 days and to receive funding.

In the case of military actions outside of declaring war that are not urgent, do we trust a single individual President, a few politicians in Congress, a political party, or a large group of citizens with collective intelligence with such an important decision? I propose that the people decide if military action should be authorized except under an immediate threat as described previously. The citizens should do as good or better a job than Congress. The Council of Defense would post the issue on their Citizen Governance Website as an expedited or emergency issue. The people would have 30 or 60 days (or the period selected by the council depending on the urgency of the situation) to reach a solution.

If action were taken by the Council of Defense in an emergency, it would post the action on its Citizen Governance Website to comply with the War Powers Resolution. Citizens would have up to 60 days to approve continuing the action if the Council of Defense requested it or to develop alternative solutions through the democratic solution process.

Declaring war

The writers of the Constitution relegated the power to declare war to Congress, not trusting such a power to an individual. Declaring war is only one solution to a complex issue. When we have transformed to the first Collaborative Democracy, I propose that declaring war be decided by and supported by the people. A declaration of war would be entered as an issue on the Citizen Governance Website of the Council of Defense. The issue could be entered by the council or by a citizen. The council could give the issue an urgent timeframe as the council sees fit.