Top Obama Officials Disagree Over Whether U.S. At War With ISIS

TIME ^ | September 12, 2014 | by Zeke J Miller

[Oldeconomybuyer]

The use of the W-word could have both legal and political implications.

Top Obama Administration officials have publicly given conflicting accounts in recent days over a fundamental question of the new U.S. military campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria: Is the nation at war?

With 158 airstrikes carried out on ISIS targets and more than 1,600 troops deployed to Iraq in various capacities, Secretary of State John Kerry told ABC News Thursday that the nation was not in fact at war with the militant group.

But by Friday afternoon, the White House and the Pentagon were reversing course. “Make no mistake, we know we are at war with [ISIS], in the same way we are at war, and continue to be at war, with al-Qaeda and its affiliates,” Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Admiral John Kirby said, referencing a long-term, largely-airborne campaign against the terrorist group.

At the White House, the same word was used. “The United States is at war with [ISIS] in the same way we are at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates,” echoed White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest minutes later. “The United States is at war with [ISIS].”

Only Congress can formally declare war under the U.S. Constitution.

[JoeFromSidney]

Has there been a declaration of war by Congress? If not, we are not at war. Someone else may be at war with us, but for us it's an undeclared war. If Congress were to declare war, against whom would it be? The Islamic State is not a recognized nation. So far it's an army and a geographical expression. Where is the seat of government? Who is the executive? How are laws made (even Saddam Hussein said, the law is two lines above my signature).

The big issue is not whether we're at war, but whether we have a defined goal and a proposed path for reaching it. Air strikes are tactics, not strategy. Even forming alliances is a tactical move, not a strategic one. Until Obummer defines the war goals and how he intends to reach them, he has no strategy. He's just winging it.

There's another issue with regard to declaring war. When I was at the War College back in 1971, we had a speaker from the Administration. One of the students asked, why didn't we declare war against North Vietnam? The speaker replied that there are a lot of laws on the books (rationing, allocation of resources to industry, etc.) that go into effect upon a declaration of war. The Administration realized they'd mess up the economy, and it wasn't worth reconstituting the World War II economy just to fight North Vietnam. I lived through WW II, and I remember how the government messed up the economy by trying to run it from Washington. Rationing of this, that and the other. Allocating resources to defense industries. Regulations out the wazoo. It was a mess, and I don't want to see it repeated. Especially not for the Islamic State.