Fighting Under World War II Rules

A Publius Essay | 24 January 2007 | Publius

[Publius]

The United States Constitution does not recognize War and War Lite, only that a state of war exists. Traditionally the US has used two different instruments for declaring war. When dealing with a sovereign nation the policy was to use a declaration of war, and it was removed from the books in the treaty that ended the war. When dealing with a non-sovereign, like the Barbary pirates or al-Quaeda, the policy was to use a congressional resolution authorizing the use of force. That these resolutions were not removed from the books after the non-sovereign was defeated is simply a matter of legislative sloppiness, and nothing further should be read into it.

While a declaration of war and a resolution authorizing the use of force are two different instruments of war, they carry the same constitutional weight. However, they do not carry the same political weight.

Fighting World War II at Home

Once Congress declared war Americans banded together to fight the common enemy. Dissent was crushed or severely chastised. Two years before America became involved in the war, the British and Canadians were already fighting, and many Americans took the train across the border to enlist in the Royal Canadian Air Force. (This is a far cry from those Americans who crossed to Canada during the Vietnam debacle.)

After Pearl Harbor, America launched its first full military mobilization since 1917. The draft had been reinstated a year earlier, and now American males received letters that began, “Greetings from the President.” Few thought of evading the draft, and huge crowds of angry men mobbed recruiting centers to enlist. There were no voices calling the attack “a law enforcement problem”. There were no voices saying that America had brought the attack upon itself because of some flaw in its makeup or policies. There were few who said that such an attack was not sufficient reason for war. Although there had been a vibrant antiwar movement before Pearl Harbor, no antiwar demonstrators ever took to the streets, and if they had, an angry mob would have lynched them before the police could have arrested them. With the declaration of war America operated under “World War II Rules”.

• American fighting men served “for the duration” of the war, not for time-based terms of service.
• American society and industry underwent full mobilization. Industrial plants manufacturing consumer goods were converted to war plants under full government industrial planning.
• Gasoline was rationed, and a 35 mph national speed limit was enforced. Billboards with the message, “Is this trip really necessary?” were ubiquitous. Posters reminded people that when they drove alone, they were “riding with Hitler.”
• Silk, nylon, rubber and copper were among many materials reserved for military use, and those who dabbled in the black market were imprisoned. Foodstuffs were rationed, people were warned not to hoard food and told to report those who did. Catholics had long had meatless Fridays, but now the entire nation had meatless Tuesdays.
• American women planted “victory gardens”, Boy Scouts scavenged metal and rubber “for the war plants,” and people were encouraged to buy war bonds because, “It's bonds or bondage!” (Just try using that slogan in San Francisco today!) On the radio, when American women heard, “Ladies, bring your fat cans down to the corner butcher,” they knew it referred to cans of rendered fat, not oversize buttocks.
• In wartime all news coverage is propaganda. No matter how bad the news from the front, the reassuring voices of Edward R. Murrow, Ed Herlihy and Lowell Thomas explained how this latest setback was merely a bump in the road on “our way to total victory!” All war news was censored. Reporters censored themselves, editors censored reporters, and publishers censored editors. If a publisher prepared to print something that undermined morale or the war effort, the FBI paid a visit.

World War II Rules permitted a unified approach to war by a cohesive society. It was how America fought and won.

And Then It All Went Wrong

In 1959 Dr. Henry Kissinger of Harvard wrote an article in Foreign Affairs, “The Twilight Struggle”, that revolutionized American foreign policy. Kissinger argued that the stakes of nuclear war had become so unacceptably high that the conflict between America and the Soviet Union would be fought in the Third World in the form of “wars of liberation.” To compete in this arena would require Americans to fight long-term limited wars in obscure parts of the globe. Kissinger did not suggest using American ground forces but favored supporting pro-American governments in this effort.

The initial American involvement in Vietnam was a congressionally authorized deployment of American forces as military advisors to the government of South Vietnam, and the deployment was multinational, supported by such nations as Australia and South Korea. US Army Colonel John Paul Vann arrived and saw a nation of Vietnamese-speaking Buddhists governed by an elite group of French-speaking Catholics. He saw a president of South Vietnam who was ascetic to the point of being a holy man but who was not strong enough to prevent his family from stealing everything that wasn’t nailed down. What disturbed Vann most was the unwillingness of South Vietnam’s army to fight and the unwillingness of the country’s president to make it fight.

Success in the military does not come from delivering bad news to one’s superiors. Vann met with Lyndon Johnson in 1964, gave him the bad news, but offered him a way out – sending American ground forces to take over the fighting.

Following a questionable incident at the Gulf of Tonkin, Johnson procured a further congressional authorization to send ground troops to South Vietnam and wage aerial war on North Vietnam. A declaration of war was rejected because of the multinational nature of the initial effort and the fear of Soviet and Chinese reaction to such a declaration on one of their client states.

But there was another – unstated – reason directly tied to Kissinger’s theory. As experienced in World War II, a declaration of war would lead to strong passions on the part of the American people. Should a crisis erupt in Vietnam that escalated tensions with the Soviet Union or China, political passions might make it impossible for an American president to back down. Great powers do not like to lose face. The loss of room for maneuver could easily turn a limited war into a nuclear war; thus Vietnam had to be a passionless war.

Without a declaration of war there was no political consensus to permit the US to fight under World War II Rules. In 1965 when Johnson spoke in El Paso, he witnessed his first antiwar demonstration, where police roughed up the demonstrators and then arrested them for disorderly conduct. This was what one would have expected under World War II Rules, but it was not to last.

As the passionless war drifted on, public resistance stiffened. Some felt that Vietnam – without our interference – would eventually evolve to look something like Sweden, a point espoused by Frances Fitzgerald in her book, Fire in the Lake. Others who were pro-Communist rooted for an American defeat. Still others felt this latest chapter in the Cold War was a policy mistake. But most simply did not want to be drafted to fight a limited war when the American homeland was not threatened.

America now found itself fighting under Vietnam Rules. And it lost.

The War Against Radical Islam

September 11, 2001 changed everything. American popular passions had been aroused, and George Walker Bush issued an ultimatum to the world: “You are either with us or against us.” But there was no declaration of war.

Some argued that al-Qaeda was not a sovereign entity. But intelligence had long shown that many sovereign nations had been involved, directly or peripherally. Afghanistan had provided al-Qaeda with a base of operations, Pakistan’s intelligence forces had provided tactical support, and Saudi Arabia had provided financial support as a way of paying al-Qaeda to leave it alone. The fingerprints of many Islamic nations were all over 9/11.

However, a declaration of war would have galvanized opposition throughout the entire Islamic world, and the US would not been able to take on all enemies at once with conventional forces. A nuclear response and a massive mobilization via a military draft would have been the only way to end the threat quickly. But the first use of nuclear weapons would have galvanized opposition from the entire world and turned America into an international pariah.

The chosen approach had echoes of Vietnam, Desert Storm and World War II. One limited war after another would be fought in a controlled fashion and under the umbrella of the UN whenever possible. The idea was not to escalate piecemeal as in Vietnam, but to go in quickly with overwhelming force, crush the enemy’s military, conquer him – and then rebuild him as America had rebuilt Germany and Japan after World War II. But nation building turned out to be a difficult proposition when the enemy government did not officially surrender, the enemy populace did not acknowledge it had been defeated, and the enemy culture was hard, rocky ground in which to sow the seeds of democracy.

In Afghanistan a coalition of nations worked with the US under UN approval to remove the Taliban from power. But the war in Iraq proved to be more problematic, as EU nations opposed the effort. Some EU nations wanted to preserve the lucrative business arrangements they had with Iraq, and others wanted an Iraq with weapons of mass destruction to function as a counterweight to keep a nuclear Israel under control. The same nations oppose American action against Iran because Iran has now assumed the counterweight function.

Fighting Again Under World War II Rules

As the Iraq adventure began to go sour, the political unity that had existed in the days immediately following 9/11 evaporated, and America found itself once more fighting under Vietnam Rules. (When you see bumper stickers that read, “Peace is Patriotic”, you know you are fighting under Vietnam Rules.) Were America operating under World War II Rules today, things would be very different.

• A declaration of war would be on the books, not so much for constitutional reasons but for political reasons.
• The word “sacrifice” would be heard on a daily basis, and Americans would be willing to live with fewer government programs, to include reduced entitlements.
• Gasoline rationing would be in effect. Money paid to the Saudis for their oil had long trickled into al-Qaeda’s coffers, and the US would become quite choosy as to the sources of its oil. Alaska would be drilled deeply and thoroughly. Posters would appear reminding people that when they drove alone, they were “riding with Osama”. Money devoted to highways would be diverted to public transportation on a massive scale. Amtrak would become trendy.
• War is based on credit, and rather than pass tax cuts the government would raise taxes through the roof to cover the costs of war. War bond campaigns would flood the media.
• Mainstream Media outlets issuing news coverage slanted even slightly against the war would receive a visit from the government. The FCC would pull the broadcast licenses of violators.
• Those antiwar demonstrators in Oakland (in 2003) who blocked stevedores from loading a naval ammunition ship would have been greeted with lead instead of rubber, and the shooters would have been the US Army, not the local police. The survivors would have been arrested for treason.
• People who put "No Iraq War" signs in the windows of their homes would be severely ostracized by their neighbors, if not burned out. A similar fate would greet those advertising their seditious beliefs via bumper stickers.
• Certain congressmen and senators would be expelled from Congress.
• Most importantly, there would be a total military mobilization, but this time conscription would function without deferments, and all would serve “for the duration”. It’s hard to have an anti-war movement when everyone is in uniform. America’s colleges would shut down because there would be no students. This would have the salutary effect of ending the poisoning of the minds of American youth by the mavens of socialism and political correctness.

Next Stop, Iran?

As war clouds gather over Iran, it is important to correctly evaluate the enemy. Iran has an army and a religious police force that is absolutely motivated by religion and absolutely ruthless in execution. Their Hezbollah surrogates will not hesitate to strike the American homeland if possible. For this nation to fight effectively and win may eventually require the use of unconventional weaponry, something that will horrify most of the world, bring on the condemnation of the United Nations and push the American Left to the point of open revolt. For political purposes, a declaration of war may be necessary to draw those lines beyond which dissent dare not cross and to make clear to the world America’s resolve.

While it may make no legal difference as to which instrument the nation uses to go to war, there are political differences, and there must be ground rules. Today, unfortunately, America is operating under Vietnam Rules. Unless this changes, defeat becomes inevitable.

[abigkahuna]

You know, During the Korean War, HOllywood produced not only heoric "pro-war" propaganda movies, but also the first "anti war" movies. "Retreat Hell" come to mind as an example of the former and "Men at War" and "Bridge at Toko-Ri" of the latter.

After the faitgue of WW2, America did not want to get interupted with another war... Good article Publius...

[Publius]

But why do we need to occupy the country after we wipe it off the map? If a hostile government forms, who cares? We'll just wipe it off the map again.

Please see Post #28. The individual who wrote that post is far more eloquent than I.

[Lurker]

For later.

L

[rmlew]

# Gasoline rationing would be in effect. Money paid to the Saudis for their oil had long trickled into al-Qaeda’s coffers, and the US would become quite choosy as to the sources of its oil. Alaska would be drilled deeply and thoroughly. Posters would appear reminding people that when they drove alone, they were “riding with Osama”. Money devoted to highways would be diverted to public transportation on a massive scale. Amtrak would become trendy. # War is based on credit, and rather than pass tax cuts the government would raise taxes through the roof to cover the costs of war. War bond campaigns would flood the media.

We are not just fighting Al-Qaeda and possibly Iran. This effort will take years. We cannot destroy our economy.
WE are spending about 3% of GDP on this war and another 3% on other military costs. Even if we were spending more realistic amounts like 5% on each, we would not have to significantly raise taxes. The issue is the growth of non-military spending.

Ron
PS. Why not raise the retirement age to 70?

[rmlew]

If Hib'ullah were to attack us, we would have a very good reason to declare war on Iran.
Greater Azerbaijan here we come.

[Robe]

for later

[Neil E. Wright]

self-ping for later

[4woodenboats]

But why do we need to occupy the country after we wipe it off the map? If a hostile government forms, who cares? .

Because we don't want to leave the innocents at the mercy of the islamofascists who would be moving in, slaughtering everyone who collaborated with us, and turning the country into many rivaling WMD factories - ones that came with their own Global Jihad Overnight Express delivery.

This is exactly what the anti America and anti autonomous America crowds are salivating for, that we leave the country in ruins and at the disposal of the terrorists. There is nothing more attractive to the internationalists than to see us leave Iraq defeated, discredited, declawed.

Imagine the cry amongst them then - many of which are in our own congress - to have the United Nations have authority over our President and congress on matters of national defense. Better to finish bringing peace to the 10+% percent of the country still in turmoil, and leave an ally capable of protecting itself and keeping an eye on our enemies in the region in our wake, don't you think?

We'll just wipe it off the map again

Do you honestly believe that statement? I don't. The UNofA wouldn't let us. Venezuela would veto the motion

And the problem was that Bush never made a strong enough case for our involvement in Iraq.

Yes he did, but the press called him a liar and did not openly or in any semblence of accuracy report just what was in all the intelligence & WMD reports.

People really do believe everything they read, and rarely read far past the headline. When the democrats & the press said that the inspectors, UNSCOM, Butler, Duelfer reports, etc, concluded there were NEVER any WMDs in Iraq, people believed them. I can't tell you how many people have called me a liar for posting excerpts of these. Most people have never read any of them, have never looked for them

Don't get me wrong, I support what we did and believe we had every right to do it. But just as in Vietnam, people don't see the necessity of this war. While it was widely agreed that the war against the Taliban was a war of necessity, in hindsight the war in Iraq appears to have been optional

Maybe I'm getting a little cynical, but it's been a very long time since I've seen a statement that started with "Don't get me wrong, I support...." that didn't finish with the reason it was a bad idea.

[jordan8]

World War II Rules permitted a unified approach to war by a cohesive society. It was how America fought and won.

This ain't WW2 and it ain't the nation that fought WW2. The idea that we're going to fight "under WWII rules" is fantasy, it's never going to happen, it's a retreat into a make-believe world that really is more about the domestic situation than how the war is being fought in Iraq.

[4woodenboats]

Outstanding essay Publius! As always.

[AZLiberty]

The notion that the general populace of a great power needs to sacrifice to fight a war effectively is not born out by a longer examination of history ...

Or by a longer examination of the future! Although we are having problems on the ideological front, our long-term military superiority rests on our long-term civilian technology superiority, which comes from allowing the capitalist system to continually exploit the wonders of Moore's and other Laws. If we shut down the civilian economy, we can divert a finite amount of resources to the military for a finite period of time, at the cost of withdrawing from the technology race. In some kinds of crisis this may become necessary, but the current engagement is a multidecade fight against an entrenched ideology. We can't afford to abandon our long-term advantage.

[swmobuffalo]

Bump

[Vicki]

Great article. This should be in all the newspapers, but of course that would never happen today. The MSM doesn't want us to win the war in Iraq.

[JDoutrider]

BTTT

[Centurion2000]

If only we were fighting under these rules.

[L,TOWM]

CBB, You and I had a discussion a couple of years ago on the whole Decleration of War/Use of Force Resolution topic.

This article articulates the arguments I was too inarticulate to express for myself then. I was stumbling around trying to convey to you they important PERCEPTUAL differences and we ended up splitting the legal hairs.

Publius -- Nice Job!

[Steel Wolf]

We have a small, highly professional force that busts the nuts of whoever they are told to confront. Until our frightened Rinos grow a spine and Rats are outed and allow our forces to be triumphant, I fear the author will be proved correct.

Herein lies a good deal of the trouble.

We have leaders that expect a small, highly professional force to succeed in the absence of real support.

The much maligned Rules of Engagement are an extention of our lack of national will. While it's good and reasonable to expect a high standard of professionalism and mercy out of our troops, these rules are different. It's moral cowardice on the part of our leaders.

It basically says, "We're sending you to war. We expect you to win, because winning is imporant enough for you to die for. It's not important enough for me to risk my political standing, though, so don't do anything that might look bad on camera, or I'll throw you to the wolves. And don't count on my support if the going get's rough, either. Popular opinion might change, and I wouldn't want to risk my Senate seat. I worked hard to get here, you know."

Inspiring.

Don't think that everyone from al-Qa'ida to the average American doesn't subconsiously understand what our lack of will to take the gloves off means. Everyone understands, on some level.

Expecting our troops to succeed when our leaders have already failed is a losing strategy.

[Congressman Billybob]

Twice in its history, the US has declared war without naming a nation or nations as the enemy. The first time was two centuries ago, when Congress authorized President Jefferson to use "military force" across "international boundaries" against the Barbary Pirates.

The second time was in 2001 when both Houses of Congress passed a Joint Resolution for President Bush to use military force against the terrorists, and "any nation harboring them." The language is very similar to what Congress said two centuries prior, in dealing with the other Muslim threat.

The point is, it is valid to declare war without naming another nation. It has been done before. But unfortunately, almost no politicians or reporters are aware of the history of the prior event under President Jefferson.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article: "Nathan Hale Died for a Dumb Nation"

[montag813]

If Bush and Rumsfeld had fought Iraq by "WWII rules", we would be having absolutely no problems there right now. We killed 100,000 Tokyo civilians in a single night in May 1945 without even a nuke. We should have killed perhaps 200,000 more Iraqi civilians, brutally, mercilessly, including the complete destruction of Tikrit and Fallujah. But the pussies who pass for leaders these days are more concerned with the "Arab street" than about putting craters into it. The West seems weak beyond repair. It is disgusting to behold. Bush talks tough but is a pussy when it comes to war.

[Jacquerie]

... moral cowardice on the part of our leaders.

Quotable.

IIRC from the sotu speech, President Bush spoke of new ROE. Fine. Therefore, I hope we'll soon hear of massive death to our enemies, in numbers such that the demorat leadership, the old media and all the leftist house organs pi$$ their panties. I grow weary of our fine troops serving as popup targets for muslim barbarians.