Yes, I know where you’re going with that as far as Trump.
I’d think that declaring a commitment to military action against a nation (ex: US declaring war on Nazi Germany) would amount to “war”, in which case Congress would have to approve it, while anti-terrorist action would be of relatively limited scope, focusing (hopefully) only on terrorists (ex: taking out Osama bin Laden, and the ongoing use of drones to eliminate terrorist leaders, etc.) Two situations.One requiring case-by-case approval, the other given a blank check.
Now, I wouldn’t put it past Trump, in an attempt to distract the American public and gain support by posing as a strong leader, to at least attempt to mount some military action to address threats from, say, North Korea. But I don’t see Congress allowing that since 1) NK has not attacked us, and 2) NK’s threats are not terrorist acts, and I don’t currently envision this Congress seeing it otherwise especially since even some in the GOP and the US military have voiced ‘diplomacy first’.
Yes, there’s the fear that Trump could try to get a toe in somewhere using the ‘terrorist’ angle then work toward escalation, or even go so far as to create a “Remember the Maine!” incident as rationale for going to war. But then there’s the real likelihood of that on top of the likelihood of Congress just going along. I think the likelihood of both converging together is low…
… still…and I have to say it again… the Dems taking back control of the congress.That would be the best way to address all of the above along with our domestic issues and Russian interference.That would pull Trump’s teeth and add real bite to efforts in forcing him out of office.