Posted on 01/24/2007 3:34:31 PM PST by 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”.
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.
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.
Understood. Being able to name the enemy is nonetheless important, or minimally, helpful. It's never been a drawback, at least :)
We won in 1973 before we lost in 1975.
This is the reason we're losing. Look, you can't declare war on a country without also declaring war on it's civilians. These "innocents" you speak of are doing nothing to help themselves or fight the terrorists.
We'll just wipe it off the map again
Do you honestly believe that statement?
Yes, I do. If we take the time to do it the first time, why wouldn't we do it again? What I'm saying is that what we should have done is go in and destroy Iraq like we did in the beginning, then get out and let the Iraqi's do what they want. If they wanted democracy, they'd make one. Let all the different tribes of terrorists kill each other trying to take power, then when one eventually wins, destroy the country again if they so much as looks at us sideways. It's this liberal-like unrealistic goal of "winning the hearts and minds" that is getting us killed. You can't force someone at gunpoint to like you. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.
Yes he did, but the press called him a liar and did not openly or in any semblance of accuracy report just what was in all the intelligence & WMD reports.
And what did Bush do then? Nothing. He stuck his head in the sand and pretended he didn't have to worry about the critics and the MSM.
Yet we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq – two sovereign nations – and overthrew governments internationally recognized by the UN and other nations. Wouldn’t a declaration of war have been the proper instrument to use? ..... Publius
The answers would be:
1. No.
2. Yes, but it would be a moot point now.
A declaration of war represents an acknowledgment of the sovereign legitimacy of the recipient just as a military firing squad represents an acknowledgment of military honor to the recipient.
It was proper to declare war against Nazi Germany because even the U.S. acknowledged that Nazi Germany was a sovereign nation and Adolf Hitler, no matter how despicable, was it's legitimate ruler.
It was not proper to declare war against the Confederate States of America because the U.S. never acknowledged the Confederacy as a sovereign nation. The position of the U.S. Government was that the Confederate States were nothing more that some of the United States in rebellion to the legitimate Government. According to diplomatic protocol, a declaration of war would have recognized Confederate sovereignty.
So, why the answer "No" in the case of Afghanistan?
Because the Taliban were never recognized by the U.N. as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. Only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates recognized the Taliban as Afghanistan's government.
A U.S. declaration of war against the Taliban Government would be the diplomatic protocol equivalent of the U.S. recognizing the legitimacy of the Taliban government.
What does my answer "Yes, but it would be a moot point now" mean in the case of Iraq?
Consider the Spanish-American War. That war lasted from April to August 1898, right?
Not by the definition that everybody is now using to define "Iraq War". By that yardstick, the "Spanish-American War" lasted until 1913.
In the "Spanish-American War", a declaration of war against Spain, a sovereign nation, was used.
Once Spain was defeated, that marked the formal end of the "Spanish-American War" and the declaration of war was no longer in force against Spain.
However, fighting against Muslim insurgents in the occupied Philippines continued until 1913 with the loss of 453 American lives. That insurgent war was fought without a declaration of war since such a declaration would have recognized the Muslim Filipino insurgents as a legitimate sovereign government.
In Iraq, IMHO, a declaration of war should have been made against Iraq to commence the "Iraqi-American War". However, once the sovereign Government of Iraq was destroyed in the war and a new legitimate Government of Iraq was installed, that declaration of war against Iraq would no longer be in force.
Today, in 2007, we are not at war with "Iraq". We are at war with insurgents thugs ranging from Baathist thugs, to Sunni religious thugs, to Shiite religious thugs to al Qaeda thugs.
Declaring war against them is the diplomatic equivalent of giving them a diplomatic courtesy reserved for sovereign nations.
Let me ask you this question. When we fought under World War II Rules last time, did any American person, newspaper or radio personality (other than Tokyo Rose) take a stance against the war? If they had, how would they have been treated?
My point was to warn against the diplomatic protocol faux pas of declaring war against insurgent thugs. It would be the diplomatic equivalent of elevating the thugs to the status of heads of state of sovereign nations and quite a feather in their diplomatic caps.
The conduct of the American people during World War II was due to public peer pressure. Before Pearl Harbor, nearly half the country from the Greman-American Bund to the Communist Part USA to America First was convincing themselves that the doings of Hitler and Tojo were none of America's business and Peace was Priority Number One.
After Pearl Harbor, anyone voicing such opinions would have been tarred and feathered.
Today, nearly half of the American population are in the Peace at Any Price camp of the Democrats and the liberal news media.
You've embraced the democrat position with both arms. Have you bothered to look past the New York Times propaganda? Are you so comfortable with it that you prefer defending it to finding out what the facts really are?
Do you know how many provinces have been handed over to the Iraqis? What gains have been made? Yes, GAINS, something you will never see the Times print, but if you take a couple minutes to read what the people who are actually fighting this war have to say, you'll find there's plenty. Have you been to the Dept. of Defense website? Here's some links to get you started;
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/9010Quarterly-Report-20061216.pdf
http://www.defenselink.mil/home/dodupdate/iraq-update/Handovers/index.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/
As for your suggestion that we "destroyed" Iraq in the beginning, WTH are you talking about? Desert Storm? We kicked them out of Kuwait, left Saddam in power and his business partners at the UN in charge to look the other way while he defied every condition of the cease fire and planted hundreds of thousands of his people in the sand.
We don't have to "force someone at gunpoint to like us", which of course is your very trollish spin for the liberal "force democracy at gunpoint" that we've heard hundreds of times ad naseum.
The only Iraqis that don't want us there are the butchers from Saddam's regime and the terrorists who want to make it their playground when we leave.
Have you forgotten that over 80% of Iraqis stained their thumbs purple under threat of death for doing so by those who were dead serious and fully capable of killing? Do you remember what they were voting for? Did you ever know? I'll give you a hint: DEMOCRACY!
That took GUTS by a people who want FREEDOM and you want us to cut 'em all down? "Wipe 'em all off the map?"
How many times? 5, 10, 2 dozen, 100 times?
There would never be an end to the nightmare if we "declared war on the citizens" as you sugggest, nor should there be, for we would have lost our soul as a nation.
You desperately need to do some DD on the facts before making the claims and suggestions you have. They're inaccurate, repulsive, and should be displayed in a different forum, if at all IMO.
I was referring to our current conflict, and when I said we destroyed Iraq, I was referring to their government. Sorry, I should have made that more clear.
That took GUTS by a people who want FREEDOM and you want us to cut 'em all down? "Wipe 'em all off the map?"
Well, not cut em down on purpose. If they want freedom so bad, they can do it themselves.
You desperately need to do some DD on the facts before making the claims and suggestions you have. They're inaccurate, repulsive, and should be displayed in a different forum, if at all IMO.
Your right, I really don't care about the Iraqi people. I really don't care whether they live under a democracy or a communist dictator. Each nation is responsible for it's own government, not me, you, Bill Clinton, or George Bush.
As I said, I supported this war at the start. Putting aside the WMD and Al-Queda evidence, Saddam needed to be removed simply for his repeated violation of UN resolutions. But their chosen form of government is none of our business, just as ours is none of theirs.
Your brand of "compassionate conservatism" scares me. You really are quit emotional, aren't you?
Plutonium "signatures" can tell where a bomb was made. If the residual plutonium after detonation doesn't carry an American signature, we would be pressing other members of the nuclear club to tell us who manufactured the bomb. The most likely source would be the old Soviet Union, which would put pressure on Putin to tell us what happened to those nukes that the renegade Russian general stationed in the Ukraine sold back in 1995. If the old nukes were sold to Iran, something rumored for years, it would get us 90% of the way to a declaration of war.
Honestly I dont think your comments reflect the reality of this conflict 'vis a vis' WW2-rules/Tokyo
Wolf
IIRC two arguments were used against making a formal Declaration of War. One was that prior laws provide some fairly automatic consequences to such a Declaration, not all of which were deemed desirable at the time. As Congress could have easily adjusted or suspended any such prior laws at the same time I reject such arguments. The other, more often cited, argument was the problem of declaring war without naming a nation. We have a Congress full of politicians skilled at inventing benefits for, laws against, taxes on any conceivable combination of humans and/or human activities and they can't figure out how to write a Declaration targeting those already waging war on us? If Bush had instead proposed a 'Tax on Terror' the Democrats could have written a definition of the target, adequate for future IRS interpretation, in less time than it took the Twin Towers to fall. Heck, when LBJ declared 'War' on Poverty in so far as I can tell his target was just the bottom end of the privately earned income Bell Curve. Thus ensuring that his 'War' could never end even though true poverty, by any real standard, has long vanished here.
Instead there was no formal Declaration using the world 'War' because, firstly, too many politicians didn't want to cede Bush the power that would provide. And secondly, because too many politicians foresaw wanting to weasel out of any effective response to 911, yet realized their constituents then demanded nothing less. And lastly, because "New Tone" Bush didn't want to use the political clout of his then high (?90%) approval level to push through what was really needed to hold the home front.
According to post #69, the visibility of the responsible nation will doubtless be revealed. I'm dubious.
Simply put, we're entering an age where nuclear weapons are no longer the private stock of major powers.
For instance, if, 20 years hence, a nuclear bomb goes off in our country, and we find that it was of Pakistani design, that doesn't mean Pakistan is the culprit. They may have helped Saudi Arabia build their program, and the Saudis may have helped Venezuala, who sold their weapons to Nigeria for cash, who then lost their weapons during a *rebel attack*, and lo and behold, it looks like al-Qa'ida got their hands on a weapon.
Who do we bomb, Mr. President?
These nations aren't stupid. Back in the old days, the Soviets had no way to launder their weapons into third party hands. The nuclear club was small, and the members were known to each other intimately. Now, the real danger of proliferation is not that the weapons are more readily available. It's that they're becoming a commodity.
If Iraq attacks Kuwait using Soviet tanks, well, that's just business. No one blamed the Russians for what the purchaser did with the weapons. While we're not quite there yet, proliferation will put nuclear weapons, by virtue of their commonality, into the same category as main battle tanks. Until then, some level of plausible deniability, like what I stated above, will have to be observed. But soon enough, so many nations will have nuclear weapons, the unique political status they held will be gone.
Welcome to the 21st century.
Ping.
It's a good article, except for this nonsense:
"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."
That is ridiculous.
Seriously. Edit it out.
A declaration of war would have been simultaneous with an invocation of NATO Article 15 (the Europeans actually OFFERED, WE turned them down!).
The Islamic world would have been scared shitless.
They already were just by the attack and the American response!
Saudi killed off bad princes. Libya flipped. Yemen flipped. Pakistan flipped on Afghanistan (they had supported the Taliban).
The Muslim world was DISUNITED by American resolve.
It would have been MORE frightened by an American declaration of war.
And the Americans would have been able to send a lot more forces too. There would have been no delay between Afghanistan and Iraq and Syria (simultaneous operations), no negotating with Congress or the UN. Saddam would have been removed because he was a terrorist. Same thing for Bashar al Assad.
And then we would have crowded forces in there around Iran, and already be in that war deep.
Had America declared war, the Islamist world would not have done any of the things you suggest. What would have happened is that America would have WON.
Instead, we are going to LOSE. Just like in Vietnam. We will be LUCKY to lose to a stable stalemate line as we did in Korea.
An observation of the American collective psyche would show that when times are tough, when all perceive hardship, Americans are more than capable of pulling together cohesively and cooperatively to 'get the job done'.
In the absence of perceived hardship, of sharing that great collective need to unify against a common enemy who makes its threat felt by all, we all go our merry ways and tend to ignore the existence of a conflict, much less the need to prosecute with equal fervor (if not scale) to that with which we prosecuted WWII.
This is borne out in times of natural disaster as well.
Shared hardship forms a common bond, one which has the capability to transcend almost all other lines along which we fractionate and quibble in easier times.
I guess $3.00 gasoline just wasn't enough...YMMV
He gets it ping.
You win by killing the enemy.
War is ugly.
War is brutal.
War is war.
The stinky hippie protesters and their less aromatic counterparts the Democrat party think yelling loud is war.
Yelling loud never stopped mustard gas. Wishful thinking never stopped bombs. Proclemations of supporting the troops but not the war never made a single baby safe from monsters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.