declaration of war

Congress should approve future military action only when Washington has no alternative course to protect America--its territory, people, or constitutional liberties.
In military circles, there is a term to describe this type of behavior. It's called cowardice.
I still remember stepping off the plane into a crowded airport after a tour in Iraq. It felt strange walking around after just leaving a war zone. Everyone seemed oblivious to that world and the fact that I just left it.
President Barack Obama finally is obeying the law. He wants Congress to authorize military action against the Islamic State. That's what the Constitution requires.
The USA is like a patient whose antibodies have run wild, a patient whose antibodies have turned on external threats even when they're not threats, a patient whose antibodies are now attacking healthy tissue within the American body politic.
The president has placed the decision whether to go to war where it belongs, with Congress. Legislators should act on behalf of the American people, not the Obama administration. And the right decision is to keep the U.S. at peace.
The big problem -- not just for Obama, but for America -- is that there simply aren't a whole lot of good options in Syria. So I thought it'd be worthwhile to go through them, in the spirit of Bush's "decider room."
Will our involvement in the Libyan conflict become illegal after May 19, 2011? Does the president have the right to order our ships and planes into military action without the approval of Congress?
Libya is not America's war. Washington, overwhelmed with current deficits and future liabilities, cannot afford to be world's permanent 911 number.