Would the "No Blood for (insert any U.S. strategic objective here)" crowd, the liberal news media and the Democrats demand a cut and run policy any less vehemently for any U.S. war if a declaration of war is on the books?
No.
During the Barbary Wars, a declaration of war was rejected because such a diplomatic courtesy is given only to sovereign nations and not to a bunch of cutthroats such as the Barbary Pirates. A declaration of war would only have inflated their international standing.
A declaration of war against a terrorist organization during a time of armed conflict is the diplomatic equivalent of appointing a U.S. Ambassador to such an organization during the absence of armed conflict.
A declaration of war recognizes your opponent as a sovereign nation worthy of such a diplomatic courtesy. That is why the United States of America never declared war on the Confederate States of America.
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?
Would the "No Blood for (insert any U.S. strategic objective here)" crowd, the liberal news media and the Democrats demand a cut and run policy any less vehemently for any U.S. war if a declaration of war is on the books?
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?
See my point?