[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"

[ExGeeEye]

Understood. Being able to name the enemy is nonetheless important, or minimally, helpful. It's never been a drawback, at least :)

[JohnBovenmyer]

IIRC Jefferson fought the First Barbary 'War' without an explicit 'Declaration of War;' Madison fought the Second Barbary War with one. After 911 there was discussion here on FR and also discussion by a very few in Congress of making an explicit Declaration of War precisely because of the domestic political seriousness such would create. The subject was rapidly bypassed with very little debate and I've often thought we've sorely missed such ever since.

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.