We Will Never Destroy ISIS Without a Full-Blown Declaration of War

Townhall.com ^ | January 23, 2016 | Larry Kudlow

[MamaTexan]

First, you have to pick a country to Declare War on.

The government has no authority to declare war on an ideology. Bush doing that stupid cr@p is EXACTLY what allowed Bammy to run around stirring up the entire middle east.

[Albion Wilde]

bump

[PGalt]

Thanks much Kaslin for posting the mugshots of the progenitors of the current iteration of Islamic extremism.

Enemies foreign, ENEMIES DOMESTIC.

FUBO
FUHillaryousRottenCriminal

Wake up infidels.

[PGalt]

BS, Kudlow.

DEFUND/DISENGAGE/DECIMATE/DISMANTLE/DESTROY totalitarian ideologies (as necessary) foreign and domestic. DEPOPULATE their enablers from the body politic. Enemies foreign. ENEMIES DOMESTIC (secular totalitarians/socialists)

It’s EASY to -

live - free - republic

[LaRueLaDue]

Who said anything about the submission of those countries populations? I think it will take more than simple submission to defeat Islam...

[JohnBovenmyer]

The government has no authority to declare war on an ideology.

Why not? All the Constitution says is that "The Congress shall have power:... To declare war". It is silent on any parameters. The argument, made against the few who wanted a formal Declaration of War post 911, that one wasn't possible because you couldn't define its target, is dangerous. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. If anything, any group, any concept can not only formally declare war on us, but back it up with significantly lethal and damaging acts we must be able to respond. 'War' may not always be the best option, but all options must be on the table.

Not only is the proposed inability dangerous, it is insulting... insulting to the collective imagination of Congress. So you, personally, can't think of a way to define the enemy and make it sound nice. First, declarations of war should NOT sound nice. Second, you, personally, may not know how to define them even un-nicely. I, personally, may not know how to define them. But I, personally, do know how to get them defined! You go to the any Ways and Means Committee and tell them you have an idea for a big tax increase and bipartisan support to enact it, but aren't sure how to phrase the tax bill. I guarantee some staffer will come up with a tax bill targeted to anything you can dream up with significant support from majority and minority committee members once the word bipartisan is mentioned, no matter what the target. Take the bill, change what "tax on" to "war on" and you're ready to go!

[PA Engineer]

The government has no authority to declare war on an ideology.

I disagree. Nazism was an ideology. The US instituted a denazification program at the end of the war. Islam really is the same coin and it's current form was rooted in the Nazi past. Just google the Mufti of Jerusalem and the history of the Baathist party. Many of Sadam's loyalists are now high up in ISIS.

[MamaTexan]

Why not? All the Constitution says is that "The Congress shall have power:... To declare war". It is silent on any parameters.

Because nations are only equal to nations. Declaring war on an ideology creates a constitutional conflict, because 'ideology' is just another way to say religion. How can government declare war on something the people are supposed to have the freedom of?

[MamaTexan]

But they declared war on the countries that practiced it, not the ideology itself.

[PA Engineer]

But they declared war on the countries that practiced it, not the ideology itself.

Please look up denazification.

It was a world war that spanned almost all of Europe, Africa, the Atlantic, Pacific, Pacific Islands and more.

Isis was founded on the remnants of the Baathist Party. We could declare war again on Iraq and then end up fighting in numerous countries including Europe again.

This will be a hot third world war and it will be a fought against an ideology as was the second. I fully expect Europe to go hot with the ISIS (refugee) invasion. Not later, but this year.

[MamaTexan]

It was a world war that spanned almost all of Europe, Africa, the Atlantic, Pacific, Pacific Islands and more.

I'm well aware of that, but the wars were declared on the countries that practiced it, not on the ideology itself.

There is no historical substantiation for the contention that government has the Constitutional ability to pass a formal declaration of war on a system of beliefs.

Government is using this perpetual state of 'war' to drain the country.

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
James Madison, Political Observations, 1795

[PA Engineer]

Denazification

We are not going to have a choice. The war is coming here.

You can blow it off, however it is going to be much sooner than you think.

[JohnBovenmyer]

Religions are, at best, a subset of ideologies. And historically there have certainly been wars on religions. Cortez was right to destroy the Aztec's and the Aztec religion, and to free the surrounding natives from the Aztec butchery. In the time of the Framers there was even a widely noted war on 'religion' in general, the French Revolution.

Whe For a short period, prior to ratification of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution included a Declaration of War but not any Freedom of Religion. And the First Amendment rights have long been recognized to not be absolute. You can't cry 'fire' in a crowded theater. Because you might panic those within into a stampede and get people killed trying to get out. Pearl Harbor could as well have been considered as an attack from Shintoism under leadership from its living God, Hirohito as it was considered an attack by a Japanese 'nation.' The two were congruent. Their Kamikazes were done with elaborate religious rituals. But that didn't stop us from declaring war. And that didn't stop the Shinto religion from being modified by us in their defeat.

Whether Islam should even be considered a 'religion' is debated. It certainly is more in scope than conventional religions at the time of the Framing. Arguably its very un-American political and legal features are more important than its 'religious' ones, yet it claims to be an indivisible hole. Jefferson didn't understand it when he met Muslims in Paris during that Revolution while the Constitution was being written over here. He obtained a Koran to try to learn more about it. We value our Freedom of Religion, at least those of us on the right. Making limitations for any self-professed religion would be a difficult step. But if La Raza wants to resume wielding obsidian blades in sacred Aztec rituals in my country I expect to invoke sacred American rituals, like the Second Amendment. If modern 'Aztecs' claimed they couldn't have their religion without human sacrifice, well then no such religion allowed. If Muslims become sufficiently obnoxious and aren't willing to divide the obnoxious practices from their indivisible Islamic whole, well then no Islam allowed. If that ends up requiring a Constitutional amendment, one would pass when needed.

If we are to eventually end up at war with all of Islam, a daunting prospect, it still may strategically make sense to start out piecemeal and delay the final reckoning to more favorable circumstances. Which may call for creative definitions of the enemy. History records many series of small conflicts leading to definitive ones. And responses less than 'war' may be in our interest at times. But to let our enemies hide behind the First Amendment until we're dead would be making the Constitution into a suicide pact. It's not.

[JohnBovenmyer]

Denazification. Alas we were war weary and didn’t finish the job, skipping the Arabs.

[MamaTexan]

But to let our enemies hide behind the First Amendment until we're dead would be making the Constitution into a suicide pact. It's not.

I understand perfectly what you're saying, but in order to avoid any Constitutional conflicts, war could be declared on a country (or countries) and ALL their people could be ejected from the US.

Gitmo is a perfect example. Had we declared war, those men would have been enemy combatants, and could have been treated as such. Instead, they were treated as civilians in temporary custody with all their human rights intact.

I'm not saying islam isn't a problem, and I'm not saying ISIS and other such groups shouldn't be dealt with, but creating more problems by going about it wrong is not the answer.

Just my 2 cents.

[Impy]

Indeed.

[The Toll]

ISIS is militarily about 1/1000th as formidable as Saddam’s military. They were completely swept aside in a few days without a formal decliration. Let’s not make a bunch of clowns with small arms into something they’re not please.

[PA Engineer]

Denazification. Alas we were war weary and didn't finish the job, skipping the Arabs.

So true! I have pondered the same thing for many years. We (and the allies) never finished the job and only brought a handful of war criminals to justice. It is true we were war weary.

[JohnBovenmyer]

I'm all for avoiding Constitutional conflicts if possible, but not at suicidal costs. Changing the Constitution or ignoring it to any degree is injuring ourselves. Some of the countries sourcing 'Islamic' problems are as majority Islam as Japan was majority Shinto or Tenochtitlan was majority Aztec. For them, if so desired, declaring war on the country would be a simple solution if we just wanted war with jihadists just there. Some sources have more diversely religious populations or geographically limited jihadis. Defining the enemy there is less simple. Cruz proposed something alone those lines after Trump's proposal to temporarily ban Muslim immigration until the government thought up a better solution. Cruz's proposed 'better solution' was banning immigrants from regions with significant jihadist activity. I forget his precise wording but he phrased it by country or geographic areas, rather than by religion. When fighting even a cold war I want our leaders to be creative. I was annoyed when Trump supporters bashed Cruz's plan. Trump had essentially asked for a better option when proposing his initial ban, and could have taken Cruz's as at least a start on developing one.

As for the Gitmo prisoners, weren't they initially, and properly, classified as 'illegal combatants' rather than as 'civilians.' With very different, and very fewer, rights. Because they were fighting without uniforms and hiding amongst the civilian population, the international laws of war, developed to try to minimize harm to noncombatant civilians when large armies were roaming Europe, didn't protect them. Their behavior put noncombatant civilians at risk because the legal combatants had to be able to defend themselves and couldn't differentiate the bad guys from the innocent. They were liable to be shot on capture, like spies and pirates, IIRC. I'm not sure they are still liable to be shot after a decade in custody, though for this bunch shooting them would be preferable to releasing them to shoot at us! IIRC, had there been a formal war declared and they still continued to fight without uniforms admixed with the truly civilian population they'd still be 'illegal' combatants. Cf. old war movies when our guys say they could be shot if caught out of uniform, or the Battle of the Bulge when German's were executed for impersonating Americans. War, vs. something less than war, as a response to aggression needs to be fit to the circumstances. Declaring war places various restrictions on ourselves and is overkill for some circumstances. I can hope circumstances call for leaving the 'war' option on the table, but don't leave it artificially off the table.

[Pearls Before Swine]

I agree, BUT, I would never in a MILLION years give Obama presidential war time powers.

You got it. Give a Muslim full wartime powers over the USA military and USA civilian sectors? To "control" other Muslims? INSANE!