What should guide a Commander-in-Chief when declaring war?

A blogger made the observation that, given that today's military is all voluntary, should they not expect to be sent to a war like Iraq. The answer to that question is an emphatic NO.

Why? What's different about Iraq from all other wars we have fought? There is a HUGE difference. What is it? Iraq was a war of choice.

Any Comander-in-Chief (CIC) has an obligation to the troops to do several things:

1. Not to send them into battle until all reaceful means of settling a dispute have been exhausted.Send them into battle with a clear mission and a clear exit strategy, i.e., what does "winning" and "success" mean, how do we know when we get there.
   
2. Send them into battle with the proper training and equipment (proper body armor, proper vehicle armor, anti-IED protection, etc.) to provide them with the greatest protection possible and all the equipment they will need to accomplish the mission with the least amount of damage and casulaties.
   
3. To give them the best possible care and treatment for the physical and mental wounds, including rehab, PTSD counseling, PTBD treatment, etc., they suffer from their service.
   
4. To cut all the red tape in getting them access to the medical treatment they need.

Those are the absolute requirements for a CIC to send troops into battle. Unless attacked unexpectedly, there are no excuses for a president to do otherwise.