War in a constitutional democracy is supposed to begin with debate.
Instead, Americans woke up last weekend to discover that the United States had already begun major military operations against Iran. There was no vote in Congress authorizing the use of force. There was no address to the nation explaining the objectives, the risks or the potential cost in American lives.
There was simply an announcement that the war had begun.
Now that conflict has reached New Hampshire.
Governor Kelly Ayotte has confirmed the deployment of members of the New Hampshire National Guard in connection with the widening conflict in the Middle East. These service members are not abstract figures in a Pentagon press briefing. They are Granite Staters — our neighbors, our friends, and members of families in communities across this state.
Before New Hampshire soldiers are placed in harm’s way, the people of this state deserve answers.
The United States Constitution is explicit about war powers. Article I, Section 8 assigns to Congress the authority to declare war. The framers of the Constitution understood that the gravest decision a nation can make — sending its citizens into battle — should never rest in the hands of a single individual.
Yet Congress has not declared war on Iran.
Nor has it passed a new Authorization for Use of Military Force that clearly covers this conflict. Instead, the nation once again appears to have entered a military engagement through unilateral executive action.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 attempted to restore congressional oversight by requiring the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying forces into hostilities and limiting military engagement without congressional authorization to 60 days. But that law has been repeatedly tested, stretched and in some cases ignored by administrations of both parties.
The result is a troubling pattern in which America drifts into conflicts without the full democratic debate the Constitution intended.
That constitutional concern becomes even more immediate when the deployment of state National Guard forces is involved.
Under New Hampshire’s Constitution, the governor serves as commander-in-chief of the state militia — which today includes the New Hampshire National Guard — when those forces are operating under state authority. However, once National Guard units are federalized under Title 10 of the United States Code, they fall under the command of the president as commander-in-chief.
That distinction raises important questions for New Hampshire.
Were these guard members deployed under federal Title 10 orders, meaning they are now operating entirely under federal command?
Or were they mobilized under Title 32 status, in which National Guard units remain under the governor’s authority while supporting federal missions?
The legal and constitutional implications of those distinctions are significant. They determine who ultimately commands the troops, who bears responsibility for their mission, and what oversight mechanisms exist.
Governor Ayotte has not yet clearly explained which authority governs this deployment or what consultation occurred between the state and federal governments before New Hampshire soldiers were committed to this operation.
The public deserves clarity.
At the same time, New Hampshire has seen an increasing federal enforcement presence from the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Immigration enforcement is unquestionably a federal responsibility. But when federal operations intensify within states, local leaders must ensure that civil liberties are protected and that enforcement does not undermine trust within communities.
The intersection of escalating military action abroad and expanding federal enforcement at home should prompt careful oversight from state officials, not silence.
History reminds us that wars begun with limited objectives can expand quickly and unpredictably. Vietnam began with advisors. Afghanistan became a 20-year conflict. Iraq transformed from a short invasion into a prolonged and costly occupation.
No responsible leader should dismiss those lessons.
If the United States is entering another major conflict in the Middle East, the American people deserve to understand its purpose, its legal foundation, and its exit strategy.
And if members of the New Hampshire National Guard are being sent into that conflict, the citizens of this state deserve transparency from their governor about how that decision was made.
New Hampshire’s political culture has long valued independence, accountability and civic courage. Our state motto — “Live Free or Die” — reflects the belief that government must always answer to the people.
In times of war, that principle matters more than ever.
The people of New Hampshire are not asking for politics.
They are asking for answers.
David Preece is a state representative and the executive director of the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission. He lives in Manchester.