It's clear of course that military engagements are hostile, however, were the actions taken by the Obama administration covered by the WPA? I recollect two theories on this. One was the law may have been unConstitutional, and the other was what Pres Obama was doing was not covered by the law.
I suspect this is a question for the courts to parse the language and for the writers to offer their intent.
Did the Founders envision a world where there are so many complexities and nuances to consider in what for them was a much simpler time.
They in fact did. Which is why amendments are a thing.
The WPA should be an amendment, because as it stands, it flies in the face of the constitution.
The WPA exists mostly because it got really tiring not being able to do what the [censored] we want whenever the [censored] we want to do it. It is one of the three major signs of the decay of our republic.