Replies

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.

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?

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.

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.