US Secret War Expands Globally

According to the Washington Post, the Obama administration has significantly expanded a largely secret US war against Al Qaeda and other radical groups. Special Operations forces have grown both in number and budget and are deployed in 75 countries operating now. in the Philippines, Colombia, Somalia and Yemen in addition to continuing operations in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia.

The surge in Special Operations deployments, along with intensified CIA drone attacks in western Pakistan, is the under side of the national security doctrine of global engagement President Obama released in June.

The CIA drone attacks in Pakistan along with unilateral US raids in Somalia and joint operations in Yemen provide politically useful tools in this election year. Obama, one senior military aide said, has allowed “things that the previous (Bush) administration did not.” Special Operations commanders have also become a far more regular presence at the White House than they were under George W. Bush's administration.


The clearest public description of the secret-war aspects of the doctrine came from the White House counterterrorism director John O. Brennan. He said that the United States will not merely respond after the fact to a terrorist attack but will “take the fight to Al Qaeda and its extremist affiliates whether they plot and train in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia and beyond.” That rhetoric is not much different than Bush's pledge to “take the battle to the enemy and confront the worst threats before they emerge”.

.
In a report this June, the United Nations question the Obama administration's authority under international law to conduct such raids, particularly when they kill innocent civilians. One possible legal justification - the permission of the countries in question - is complicated in places such as Pakistan and Yemen where the governments privately agree but do not publicly acknowledge the attacks. While the Obama administration continues Bush policy, it has rejected the constitutional executive authority claimed by Bush and has based its lethal operations on the authority Congress gave the President in 2001 to use “all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons” he determines, “planned, authorized committed or aided the September 11 attacks.” However, many of those currently being targeted particularly in places outside Afghanistan had nothing to do with 2001 attacks. Should one person, even the President of the United States, have the unilateral power to commit the nation to war?
.

The New York Times reported a senior United Nation's official said the United States appeared to think that it was "facing a unique threat from transnational terrorist networks" that justified its effort. But that could quickly lead to a situation in which dozens of countries carry out "competing drone attacks" outside their borders against people "labeled as terrorists by one group or another."

Obama's Major Leaguers Strike Out

Prepare to say goodbye to the highly touted economic and political teams that President Barack Obama put together to rescue the nation from the mistakes of the George W. Bush administration. These experts were assembled to give the relatively inexperienced new president the centrist policies that disappointed the eager voters who had jammed the polling stations to support the apostle of change.

Among the departing economists, please find Lawrence Summers, Director of the White House Economic Council, Peter Orzag, Head of Management and Budget and Christina Romer, Chair of Council of Economic Advisors. They will be followed by the political team led by hardnosed centrists, Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff, and David Axelrod, architect of the winning strategy in the presidential election. Watch for the retirements of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Gen. James Jones, National Security Advisor, both holdovers from the Bush presidency.

This multi-faceted shakeup is an admission of failure to solve the problems of the nation. It promises a new approach, a new beginning closer to the expectations generated by Obama's charisma.

Some would blame the failures on the economic collapse and the administration’s political difficulties in passing corrective national legislation. But the Obama appointees, selected for their knowledge of capitalism's booms and busts as well as the difficulties of managing change in a nation of 300 million seemed to lack a coherent plan.

• They miscalculated the political effect of joblessness, of government spending, of the federal deficit, of the national debt.

• They came to power with the biggest public goodwill in decades but squandered it in delays and false starts.

• They proved unable to deal with the strategies of the Republicans in Congress
despite almost total political control of the House and Senate. Instead of winning compromises with elements of the GOP they settled for a media victory over “The party of NO”, forgetting that every compromise is made with opponents whose negotiation position is NO, until they agree. Hey failed to remind the electorate that the Bush administration launched two wars and a new entitlement – Medicare prescription drugs – while cutting taxes.


• They were unable to use the powerful financial and industrial institutions they saved from bankruptcy to pressure the Republicans in Congress even while they were bailing out these companies with trillions of dollars.

• They were unable to organize the committed army of Obama supporters in the presidential election into a grassroots organization to act as a pressure group on members of Congress and the media.

If the Obama administration is to survive the presidential election of 2012 giving Obama a second term, the replacements of the teams that struck out need to develop a relevant strategy. Unfortunately the new appointments will be made in the shadow of the 2010 congressional elections, almost sure to result in Democratic defeats. If history is the guide, replacements will be even more centrist than the original team. After Bill Clinton’s political defeat in the election of 1994, his policies swung further to the right but benefited from a business boom. Business and financial interests will demand looser regulation, fewer prosecutions, and lower taxes. Obama is already under pressure to appoint business executives, as though his outgoing aides Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin had not already worked for Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. Rest assured that neither Paul Krugman nor Joseph Stiglitz, both liberals, Keynesians and Nobel Prize winners, will be appointed.

The likely results: current policies will continue with new leaders, policies of mild economic stimulation, based on the political hope and prayer that another boom/bust cycle begins in time for the 2012 presidential election as it did for Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan when they got into trouble. Good luck.

The Democrats Fight Back

At long last, the Obama administration has compiled talking points for Democratic candidates for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. This campaign material is essentially defensive and does not reflect pride in the Democratic controversial legislation.

To offer hope for improving the economy: the Federal Open Market Committee is using proceeds from the Fed's vast mortgage-bond portfolio to buy long-term Treasury securities to increase the money supply by least 2 trillion dollars, thereby loosening credit and stimulating business activity. Warren Buffett objects, saying the move would lead to inflation. However, the policy change is a desperate attempt to revive the economy before November 2 and can be made without getting 60 votes in the Senate.

To offer hope for reducing the federal deficit: Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced “a cut in the military budget,” then explained that inefficient programs would be eliminated, the proceeds used for “war fighting” with the result that the next military budget will increase by “only 1% over inflation”.

To offer hope for an end to the American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq: Dates have been set for withdrawals of combat troops “subject to safe conditions on the ground” but with the understanding that US residual military forces will remain to train native troops, to protect the US embassies and the private contractors hired by the US to support the residual forces.

To offer proof that the US will continue to pursue and destroy Al Qaeda, Taliban and other insurgencies: Members of Congress are urged to cite the Wikileaks report on the 92,000 secret documents as well as the CIA -inspired report on the “Secret Assault on Terrorism” that appeared in the New York Times to show that the US military effort has been widened to many more countries on two continents. Message: we will protect you no matter what it takes.

To offer proof that the governing Democrats are not liberals: Cite Obama's Press Secretary Robert Gibbs who insists that the administration has no “professional lefties”, or people who “want to eliminate the Pentagon”, or desire “to have a Canadian health care system” imported to the US, or “relentless liberals” who were the base of the movement that put Obama in the White House.

Will these strategies help to reverse the current decline in the political fortunes of the Democratic candidates? Do they truly reflect the aims and ideals of the Party? Will they build the Party or blur the Democratic message and foster disunity? These questions must be answered to the satisfaction of the voters.

Can Obama be Re-elected in 2012

As the November congressional elections draw closer, the conventional wisdom is that large Democratic losses in the Senate and the House of Representatives are inevitable parts of the political process, a reaction to the sweeping Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008. Another view holds that the defeated party reorganizes itself and recovers some political power as the nation seeks a new equilibrium.

Yes, there have been political eras where this scenario played out, when the president's party suffered significant midterm losses, but there are just as many elections when this did not happen. And in every case, there were policy reasons for defeat of the president's party at midterm. In the current election, systematic interviews with Democratic and Republican insiders in December, 2008, found that none of them believed that the “inevitability” theory applied to the Obama administration even though it took office in the depths of the Great Recession.

Indeed, the election and inauguration of President Barack Obama was marked by a remarkable outpouring of energy, enthusiasm and passion for his ideas for hope and change. Obama has been unable to keep these feelings and attitudes alive in his own party. They have moved to the Republican opposition. The Tea Party activists are today the main source of passionate public participation with their rallies, public meetings and insistent demands while the people whose vigor elected Obama sit in sullen inactivity. Jay Leno says that “President Obama has a new message for the American people…. “Things could be a lot worse.” We've gone from “Change you can believe in” to “Things could be a lot worse.”

In this depressed political situation, the Obama White House seems to be prepared for the loss of the Senate and the House. Their victories in Health Care Reform and Financial Reform have not brought the enthusiastic popular support they expected. The necessary compromises and the talmudic details of the programs are not well understood and so far have not changed the lives of the voters. Obama supporters have been disappointed on these and other issues. They were expecting a great leap forward but received only a baby step.

Nevertheless, Obama is engaged in an endless summer of fund raising for Democratic candidates, appealing especially for big bucks. His cautious management style seems to preclude any serious effort to rev up his base to challenge the power of the elites who seem to dominate the United States, the military and the bankers. That would not be the style of Obama, a man who prefers loving to fighting.

It is within this depressing frame that Obama and his political advisers prepare for his reelection effort in 2012. They find Obama himself is more popular than his policies. He retains the loyalty of youth, minorities, labor and liberals. Although none of these constituencies are satisfied with Obama’s policies, they cannot allow the historic symbolism of his election to be shrouded in defeat and rejection.

Will Obama's basic constituency turn out to work and vote in 2012 as they did in 2008? Must he change his advisers and adopt more liberal programs in the face of the Tea Party and the elite’s opposition? Can he reduce unemployment and America's commitment to police the entire world? Or will our first bi-racial president be rejected, not for his race, but for his unwillingness to preside over a regime of serious change?

? Nationalize the Big Banks ?

Politicians in Washington are mesmerized by Wall Street campaign dollars and terrified by being branded “socialists”. That seems to be the most likely explanation for the failure of the Congress to pass a second stimulus bill despite continuing high levels of unemployment -especially long-term unemployment - that are absolutely catastrophic for millions of families.

In fact, politicians are leaning in the other direction. Instead of a jobs bill, they are promoting deficit reduction. Instead of promoting stimulation of the economy there has been a stunning revival of Herbert Hoover financial orthodoxy: hard money, balanced budget, and deficit reduction.

Yes, long-term fiscal responsibility is important but cutting spending in the midst of a recession is more likely to lead to deflation of prices, business activity and jobs than to the inflation that worries the financial elite. Social stability is promoted by full employment policies, diminishing crime, sickness and chronic unhappiness. Didn’t we learn from bitter experience?

The same politicians have just completed a financial overhaul bill that will be known as the Dodd - Frank Act. The outcome of this so-called reform is particularly relevant to taxpayers who spent and pledged trillions of dollars to bail out the banking system, especially the five US banks with the most assets: Bank of America $2.34 trillion, J.P. Morgan Chase $2.14 trillion, Citigroup $2 trillion, Wells Fargo $1.2 trillion, Goldman Sachs $0.88 trillion. The 10 largest banks have $10.4 trillion in assets, equivalent to 80% of the gross domestic product of the entire US

The most important failing of the Dodd-Frank Act is that it does not resolve the biggest problem and the greatest danger in the recent financial crisis.. If any one of the largest banks falls into serious financial trouble, by mistakes or by excessive risk, the federal government would be compelled to rescue to prevent collapse of the entire financial system. The concentration of wealth and power is the greatest danger to our capitalist system.

The Act reduces proprietary trading and regulates derivatives but we have had regulators and regulations for 100 years of ineffectiveness as low paid civil servants are overcome by the richest financial institutions in world history. There are two ways to reduce the risk of “too big and too powerful to fail”. First, cut the enormous and interconnected financial firms down to size by requiring them to sell off their various divisions. Alternatively, let them remain large but have the federal government take them over to be treated as public utilities run by salaried employees without the tempting bonuses realized by anti-social risks and gambling with other people’s money. If the taxpayer assumes the ultimate risk by bailout, he should have the ownership as well as the profits generated by the rise and fall of the various markets, often manipulated by the big boys in their seats of power

Will We Ever Leave Afghanistan?

American military forces have been fighting in Afghanistan since 2001 under the congressional authorization to destroy Al Qaeda for its role in training the 19 criminals who attacked the World Trade buildings in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington D.C. on September 11, 2001, a date that will live in infamy. US military leaders now say that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda are no longer in Afghanistan but probably in Pakistan. The enemy has become the Taliban, an insurgency movement dedicated to overthrowing the Karzai government in Afghanistan, a regime supported and financed by the US.

President Barack Obama has sent 30,000 more troops to reinforce the 75,000 already in Afghanistan, in his attempt to secure a military victory over the Taliban guerrillas, a victory that will ensure the survival of the Karzai regime now holding power by election fraud and wholesale corruption. After ten years of fighting, thousands of American troops killed or wounded and a trillion dollars spent, most Americans want to transfer responsibility for this civil war to the Afghan government. However Obama policies for ending this long war are notable for their contradictions. He promises to begin drawing down US forces in July, 2011, “responsibly” but not hastily, and “taking into account conditions on the ground.” These hedges will allow Obama to delay or eliminate withdrawal indefinitely while citing the promised date as policy. Obama hints of willingness to talk to the Taliban while stepping up a military campaign designed to eliminate them. This has inspired President Karzai to begin his own secret negotiations with the Taliban in preparation for the possible departure of the Americans.

This has been the longest war in American history, begun when the US economy was in full bloom and the financial cost was not a factor. Now, with the economy hurting and enormous federal deficits piling up, voters are asking why are we in Afghanistan, a forsaken land dominated by brigands over the centuries, with no economic assets beyond opium, with a population largely illiterate, hardly a factor in world politics. With an important US election just a few months away, the Obama administration finally produced a reason for US presence in Afghanistan by announcing that it had discovered $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits there, far beyond any previously known reserves and “enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself.”

It must be very difficult for soldiers to put their lives on the line with such a contradictory and vague policy. Who wants to be the last one to die for a mistake? And who will protect the American businesses who invest in the newly discovered mineral riches? And who will protect them from the war lords and native marauders?


The timing of the minerals story is curious, especially because this information has been available for years. In fact, the McClatchy newspaper chain revealed several years ago that the Chinese government had made a long-term deal with the Karzai government giving them mining rights to the biggest copper mine in the world and that the Chinese were being protected from Afghan brigands by US troops. Obama needs to explain why the Chinese get this prize investment when US casualties make the exploration possible. What was the deal between China and the US? Was the price China's cooperation on the nuclear crises with North Korea and Iran?

In any case, it looks as though the American voters are being manipulated. We are leaving Afghanistan – maybe - but if we stay there is a pot of gold at the end of this rainbow. Will this be enough to the defer voter worries until after the November election? Will it take this issue away from the Republicans? The prime reason for the contradictory Obama policy is probably political. Leaving Afghanistan without a clear military victory is sure to inspire political attacks on the Obama administration as incompetent or worse, that it diminished US security by "losing Afghanistan", as though it was ours to lose.

Jobs or Derivatives?

The United States needs another stimulus package to increase domestic economic activity which will generate more jobs and eliminate the remnants of the “Great Recession”. However, the Congress hesitates to pass the necessary legislation because the members are spooked by the rise of a competing worry, the federal deficit, now at $12.3 trillion and increasing by over $1 trillion for this year and the next.

These are not unimportant numbers but they should be placed in context: the accumulated deficit is equal to the lost revenues of the George W. Bush tax cuts plus the cost of the George W. Bush wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Without these very questionable expenditures there would be no federal deficit.

The proposed jobs bill is not questionable. It is required by the very high unemployment rate now almost 10% according to federal statistics but actually nearer to 15% when it includes the workers who have stopped looking for work, the workers who are forced to work part-time, and those working at jobs well below their training. As a result, we have a serious jobs crisis, a family crisis, and a humanitarian crisis that requires immediate amelioration before it leads to a social explosion.

The US economy and the federal government have other obligations, current and potential, that make the federal deficit look like small change. The Wall Street Journal reported on June 16, 2010, in an inside section indicating minimum importance, that, “Right now, US banks, mostly a few giants, have $276 trillion in over-the-counter derivatives….. Most of these derivatives are within commercial bank subsidiaries that enjoy federal deposit insurance. Thus, the banks effectively enjoy a government subsidy that likely distorts prices and allows them to hold too little capital against the derivatives…. The top derivative banks are so big the government would almost certainly rescue them - and their derivatives affiliates - if they are collapsed….”

The frightening $276 trillion threat posed by the derivatives is not getting the attention of the media and the Congress commensurate with the danger, nowhere near the worry about the $12 trillion threat and that's a pity. The $12 trillion threat is being used to prevent passage of a $1 trillion jobs bill that would boost jobs and business activity as it did during the Great Depression of the 1930s.

These contrasting choices highlight the most important issues this election year. There is no obligation for the federal government to guarantee any derivative investments (aka gambling). There is an obligation for the federal government to promote social and family stability through gainful employment policies.

Will the candidates for the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives respond to the political contributions of the bankers or the agonies of the workers and their families? Stay tuned.

Breaking Up the Super Banks

What made this recession a "great recession" isn't only its depth and duration. Most importantly, it has forced changes in the role of government in the economy, in rules for finance and banking. In addition, and just as far-reaching, it has changed American attitudes toward spending and thrift, retirement and homeownership, as well as finance and government.

Public attitudes toward the super-banks may have changed the most. "Bailout" has become a nasty word describing the incestuous relationship between the banks and the U.S. Treasury. It is a scandal that certain bankers had a private window at the Treasury for their financial convenience when money was needed to bail them out of their gambling and mistakes. The unfairness of the government subsidizing the errors of a particular industry is obvious but it is compounded by the subsidizing of only a part of that industry, the super-banks.

Don't think that this favoritism is due to family connections or college chums or drinking buddies, although there are favorites everywhere, even in Hell. Surprise: there was also the profit motive. Banks deemed by the government as too big to fail can borrow money for normal operations at lower rates of interest. The lender knows that this borrower is virtually guaranteed by Uncle Sam. The hazard, always a factor, is greatly diminished because the US Treasury is just over the horizon to bailout the deal. As a consequence, business practices are distorted, extra risks are taken and super-banks profits are dramatically increased. They can afford more political contributions and lobbyists. The banks can use the extra profits to acquire other banks making them even more essential to the national economy.

The big banks that dominate the economy do not lack defenders in high places, defenders whose influence offsets the qualms of the average citizen. Heavyweights such as Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, presidential advisor Lawrence Summers, Robert Rubin, former Treasury Secretary and chief executive at Goldman Sachs and Citibank, would prefer strengthening regulation of banks rather than breaking them up by congressional law. Regulators can be pressured in a variety of ways; by the White House, by Members of Congress, by the prospect of future jobs, by the intricacies of the regulations, etc.

Finally, if the super-banks are divided so that they are not too big to fail, if a version of the New Deal Glass-Steagall Act of 1930’s was reenacted, separating commercial banks from investment banks, the question would remain whether that would be enough to prevent bank growth in unforeseen ways to the level that would command the subsidy of "too big to fail". We need to monitor these guys - in the public interest - to protect fair competition and to guard our national treasury.

Maintaining US Hegemony

Robert M. Gates, US Secretary of Defense, wrote in Foreign Affairs, “The United States is unlikely to repeat a mission on the scale of those in Afghanistan or Iraq any time soon - that is, forced regime change followed by nation building under fire.”

This statement is close to admitting that the invasions were mistakes, that the dangers they were designed to suppress were not commensurate with the cost of suppression. One might then ask, why not bring the troops home at once, or as soon as logistically possible? Why plan on leaving 50,000 or more “residual” American troops in the occupied lands as an additional potential sacrifice in pursuit of a mistaken policy?

Gates continued: “In these situations, the effectiveness and credibility of the United States will only be as good as the effectiveness, credibility, and sustainability of its local partners.” Clearly, our local partners in Iraq and Afghanistan do not have these qualities. Their weakness requires US occupation and military sacrifice because the local elites do not have the power and ability to manage their countries nor the popular support to enforce their will.

The result was predictable: total reliance on the US military and US occupation forces. From time immemorial, these factors have always generated great increases in popular resistance. The foreign occupier violates native territoriality whether in Concord/ Lexington or in Jerusalem. The Tories were too weak to help the British occupiers of Massachusetts in 1776 and Herod could not control the Hebrews who revolted against Roman control of holy places..


The US had experienced this human phenomenon more recently. The leaders of South Vietnam made a mess of governing, alienated the population, crushed the subsistence farmers, created enemies of their regime as well as intense hatred of their American allies. After their complete victory in World War II, the allied forces were wiser, handing over power to the traditional elites in Germany and Japan, who were strong enough to manage their countries while taking general orders from the American conquerors who remained in the background – a strong contrast with Iraq and Afghanistan where the corrupt leaders alienated the local population. It is difficult if not impossible for a foreign occupier to rule without an effective native government to do its bidding. Such governments do not exist in Iraq and Afghanistan, another reason for immediate withdrawal.

Theoretically, as the only superpower, United States hegemony over Planet Earth can be maintained in a variety of ways. The current structure of military dominance relies on supporting the elites in the more than 140 countries where there are at least 750 US military bases. This military system puts the US in defense of ruling regimes in case of insurgency even without formal treaties. However, the military and financial costs may be too great even for the USA, a nation with only 6% of the earth’s humans but a grand 25% of the world's product. The military bases imply ultimate protection of the rulers and a degree of military occupation that inspires resentment of the US by local nationalists who will find ways of attacking the superpower.

But America has other traditions - of openness, of welcoming immigrants, of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, of constitutional government, of breaking social and sexual and racial barriers. It does not need to follow the Roman model of military empire of crushing resistance wherever it appears. America’s soft powers, its leadership in assimilation, its remarkable prosperity, its richness in ideas and technology, give it the opportunity to break the Roman pattern of legionary discipline with a benevolent leadership that relies on economic, social and moral persuasion. Even the flaws of America, its aggressiveness, its occasional meanness, its arrogance, so perfectly reflect the best and the worst of the human condition – a sort of Paradise Lost – but remembered.

The Expansion of Presidential Power

Presidential power is one of the mysteries of the American political system, certainly not justified or suggested in the United States Constitution. The last thing the framers of the Constitution wanted was a king, an American George III, with the power to tax, to levy armies, to initiate wars. Yet that is our current system and presidential power is growing as the democratic spirit weakens under the pressures of maintaining world-wide hegemony.

The ultimate presidential power: only the president can order the use of a nuclear weapon against an enemy he identifies, at a moment he chooses, for reasons he alone finds adequate. To give it practical effect the president is always accompanied by an aide carrying a briefcase containing the authorization codes to fire one or all of America's nuclear weapons. The president is not required to consult anyone. Given the strength of America's nuclear arsenal, the president can destroy the entire human species and end all life on planet Earth. This enormous personal power has belonged to all presidents since 1945.

Now President Obama seeks to expand his solitary power to the domestic economic and financial sphere, seeking control of the money supply for his unilateral use and control.

This month President Obama plans to ask Congress to give him and future presidents the power to delete individual items from appropriation bills. Many previous presidents have sought to seize the power of the purse. Here is where it now resides. The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 7, “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives…..” subject to amendment by the Senate, the right of the president to veto, and the right of the Congress to override the veto.

That is why the Supreme Court in 1998 ruled a line-item veto unconstitutional. The constitutional responsibility of the president is to execute the laws passed by the people's representatives, the Congress of the United States. Now Obama wants the Congress to surrender part of its primary responsibility.

This constitutional change is most often put forward by Republican presidents. The attempt by this Democratic president to increase his vast presidential power tends to prove Lord Acton's famous maxim that “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

Weakening our division of powers may result in greater efficiency, but would clearly diminish the plan of the founding fathers to guard against the usurpation of authority by any one of the three branches of the federal government. Take away the power of the purse from Congress and it would become little more than a club for debate, the direct representatives of the people would be shorn of any significant power. And who can guarantee that the White House will not make appropriations based in part on political pressures and electoral calculations as the Congress does now.

In fact, for many years, the executive branch has found ways to modify the intent of congressional appropriations. Sometimes the president and his minions failed to spend the money, sometimes they chose the contractors, sometimes they speed or slow the rate of expenditure, sometimes they modify the project in ways that transform it and leave it to the undermanned Congress to discover the discrepancies.

Finally, giving any president increased power over appropriations might increase the growing number of presidential wars. A Library of Congress study identified 234 military actions between 1798 and 1993 of these by US Armed Forces abroad. Only five of these wars were declared by Congress as required by the U.S. Constitution. The Library of Congress calls those not declared by Congress presidential wars. Three are being fought right now in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. If presidents had appropriating power to finance more wars, we might be fighting in more of the 147 countries in which we have military bases.