There is a war on

Now we know. The Sunday morning CNN program hosted by Wolf Blitzer provided an explanation for at least some of the bizarre behavior in evidence lately in Washington.

In response to a video clip of Senator Jon Kyl (Republican of Arizona) making the sensible point that it is "nuts" in a time of war to be disclosing our intelligence sources and methods, former Carter National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski declared that "we are not at war." While he acknowledged that there are serious threats, he suggested that it was fear-mongering to talk about being in a war, a practice used to justify otherwise insupportable infringements on the privacy and equanimity of Americans.

This is a useful prism through which to view this week's hearings on the nomination of Air Force General Michael Hayden to become the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency. We can expect Democratic Senators and even some Republican ones to showboat as they take the nominee to task for his work in a previous incarnation as the head of the National Security Agency (NSA). In that role and at presidential direction, the general strove to use NSA's powerful and exceedingly sensitive computing and eavesdropping tools to protect us against another terrible attack by enemies bent on our destruction.

Specifically, Gen. Hayden will be excoriated for having used warrantless wiretaps to try to monitor the battlefield communications of such foes. Battlefield signal intercepts in time of war are the stock-in-trade of the National Security Agency and, indeed, of military intelligence more generally. That such intercepts involve phone calls, faxes and e-mails to or from people inside the United States simply underscores the fact that we are, indeed, at war, one that amounts to a global conflict that is different - and potentially far more dangerous - than any we have fought before.

Legislators will also assail the general for having sought phone records - not wiretaps - for millions of Americans. Such information could allow the NSA to establish links between terrorist operatives and cells in this country based on calling patterns or connections between known targets and unknown associates. Again, this is the sort of activity the public would expect our government to be doing in time of war. Indeed, polling suggests the American people overwhelmingly support the NSA's efforts on our behalf.

Still, the denunciations of such eminently sensible and legal practices as unacceptable invasions of our privacy, as illegal activity and possibly as impeachable offenses are an important foretaste of what could happen if the critics get to run one or both house of Congress after November's elections: Instead of prosecuting the war for the Free World, official Washington will be consumed with prosecuting George W. Bush.

A front-page article in Sunday's Washington Post confirms what many have long believed: Those who disagree with the President's view that we are at war with a very dangerous, state-sponsored Islamofascist ideology include "a camp within the Central Intelligence Agency that considers the war to be a diversion from counter-terrorism activity." With no hint of irony, one of the Post reporters who won a Pulitzer Prize for publishing classified information apparently leaked to the paper by one of those CIA operatives, Mary McCarthy, refers to such a cabal within the ostensibly objective, non-partisan ranks of the Agency by way of trying to rehabilitate Ms. McCarthy - who had been fired by former director Porter Goss.

Mr. Goss was subsequently dismissed by President Bush at the insistence of Director of National Intelligence (DNI) John Negroponte. Now, Mr. Bush seems about to accede to another, no less ill-advised recommendation by the DNI. Mr. Negroponte wants to rehire another member of the anti-Bush "camp," former senior CIA official Steve Kappes, to be the Agency's Number 2. Such an appointment would be, to use Sen. Kyl's term, "nuts."

After all, Kappes was reportedly removed from his previous post as CIA Deputy Director for Operations when Goss discovered that he and his deputy were engaged in unauthorized disclosures of classified information to members of the press and Congress - then defiantly refused to desist when called on it. Fortunately, members of the congressional leadership have indicated strong opposition to the Kappes candidacy. They may insist that he be subjected to the sort of polygraphing about Kappes' alleged backchanneling of information to critics of the Bush Administration that resulted in Ms. McCarthy's confession to having done the same thing.

The fate not just of this presidency but control of Congress and the security of the country may depend on whether the public is clear that we are at war - and with whom and the exceedingly high stakes associated with losing. Toward this end, the President must make a redoubled effort to drive that message home, starting with assuring that his own staff and that of the Nation's intelligence agencies share his understanding of the nature of this war and his determination to win it - both of which seem to be true of Michael Hayden.

Those who feel otherwise are certainly entitled to their view. They are even entitled to work to advance it - just not from a vantage point inside the executive branch, especially by masquerading as objective, non-partisan intelligence analysts and operatives.

OK ...

no military conflict since WW2 has been accompanied with a formal declaration of war. The current policies of the Executive Branch go back to the Korean Conflict*.

Yet, all Presidents, Democrat and Republican alike, have sought AND received authorization from Congress for the use of significant military force against a sovereign nation. The facts are, all U.S. military conflicts since WWII have been “undeclared.” The *“Korean War” was/is often called the ‘Korean Conflict’ as it was positioned to the public as a police action of the United Nations.

Similarly the Vietnam War was initially referred to as a “conflict” until the growing scale of US involvement and human cost earned it the self-evident and very appropriate “war” moniker. The President (LBJ) received his not-really-a-war declaration from Congress in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. The U.S. Congress specifically authorized the President to use “all necessary measures … including the use of armed force …to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.” That [joint] Resolution was approved by the House unanimously (416-0), and by the Senate 88-2. The resolution was repealed during the Nixon years, in May of 1970.

Three years later, overriding a Nixon veto, Congress passed Public Law 93-148, The War Powers Resolution to limit the power of the President of the United States to wage war without the approval of the Congress. The Resolution is sometimes erroneously referred to as the War Powers Act, and continues to fuel a separation of powers dispute between the Legislative and Executive branches of our Federal government. But despite the rancor, all Presidents have sought AND RECEIVED consent from Congress to use military force. After “Gulf War 1” combat operations against Iraqi forces ended on February 28, 1991, the use of force to obtain Iraqi compliance with U.N. resolutions remained a War Powers issue, until the enactment of P.L. 107-243 , on October 16th 2002.

Public Law 107-243 explicitly authorized the President (GWBush) to use force against Iraq, an authority he exercised in March 2003, and continues to exercise for military operations in Iraq. The Resolution authorized “the President to use armed force to defend the national security of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and to enforce all relevant U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq.”

WRT IRaq and the war on terror - Congress has repeatedly put their support into Public Law, as follows ...

H.Res. 322
Supported the pursuit of peaceful and diplomatic efforts in seeking Iraqi compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding the destruction of Iraq’s capability to deliver and produce weapons of mass destruction. However, if such efforts fail, “multilateral military action or unilateral military action should be taken.”
Passed in the House: November 13, 1997

H.Res. 612
Reaffirmed that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.
Passed in the House: December 17, 1998

H.Con.Res.137
Expressed concern for the urgent need of a criminal tribunal to try members of the Iraqi regime for war crimes.
Passed in the House: January 27, 1998

Senate
S.Con.Res. 78 Called for the indictment of Saddam Hussein for war crimes.
Passed in the Senate: March 13, 1998

P.L. 105-235 (S.J.Res. 54). Iraqi Breach of International Obligations.
Declared that by evicting weapons inspectors, Iraq was in “material breach” of its cease-fire agreement. Urged the President to take “appropriate action in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.”
Became public law: August 14, 1998

P.L. 105-338 (H.R. 4655). Iraq Liberation Act of 1988 (Section 586).
Declared that it should be the policy of the United States to “support efforts” to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and replace him with a democratic government. Authorized the President to provide the Iraqi democratic opposition with assistance for radio and television broadcasting, defense articles and military training, and humanitarian assistance.
Became public law: October 31, 1998

H.J.Res. 75
Stated that Iraq’s refusal to allow weapons inspectors was a material breach of its international obligations and constituted “a mounting threat to the United States, its friends and allies, and international peace and security.”
Passed in the House: December 20, 2001

Senate
S. 3079 Expressed the sense of Congress that key scientists, engineers, and technicians in Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction programs should be encouraged to leave and provide information to governments and international institutions that are committed to such programs’ dismantling. Stipulates that the alien and any immediate family members shall be eligible for U.S. permanent residence admission.
Passed in the Senate: November 20, 2002

Public Laws
P.L. 107-243 (H.J.Res. 114). To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces
against Iraq. Authorized the President to use armed force to defend the national security of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and to enforce all relevant U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq.
Became public law: October 16, 2002

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I think I agree with ZB. First off there are wars and 'wars'. We've had a 'war on drugs' and a 'war on poverty' and many others. These are not wars, they are 'wars'. So the question is: is the WOT a 'war' or a war.

When you are really at war, it seems to me, you can't really have this discussion. It is blatently obvious who the enemey is, and in large part they are viewing you as the enemy and organized to fight you. For the last 500 years mostly these have been nations vs. nation conflicts, or perhaps militia vs. militia in the case of civil wars.

We are asked to consdier the WOT / Iraq such a war, but it doesn't really fit. Mostly what we hear good about what the US Army is doing in Iraq is 'nation building'. The USA and USA Army were involved in rebuilding Europe and Japan after WW2, and there were people opposed who caused problems. But, significantly, we didn't say we were still at war. The war was over VE and VJ days were passed.

So, to some extent I think Bush's "Mission Accomplished" marked the end of the normal, formal war.

If we are accept that we are at war with internation jihadi terrorism, I think that's a stretch. Surely we hate and want to defeat it, but are they really a threat that we can justify a war foooting for? Mostly the answer is no, I am afraid.

Many here on FR could point out chapter and verse what they say. So? The SLA/Weather Underground said all sorts of things about overthrowning the USA, so did the Red Brigades in Europe. Few would say we were at war with the SLA.

So I think ZB is correct, the WOT is really just a fancy name for something that is less than a real war, like say Vietnam or WW2. Until it is percieved as a real war the USA won't fight it appropriately.

Almost four years ago, I wrote an article for UPI reviewing most of America's declarations of war over the years. I pointed out that the authorization in the Patriot Act, passed days after the 9/11 attacks, was almost word for word the same that Congress gave to President Jefferson to "use military force" to pursue the Barbary Pirates (Muslims, by the way) "across international borders" in 1805.

The Constitution does not specify the exact words to be used in a declaration of war. If what Congress did for Jefferson in 1805 was a sufficient declaration, then the one Congress passed for Bush in 2001 and again a year later, is also sufficient.

Brzeniski is an ill-informed moron at best, a deliberate Democrat liar at worse, in making this statement that we are "not at war." We should be grateful that this war, for all its blood and money costs, is minor compared to the deaths and costs in proportaion to GNP in WW I, WW II, Korea, Vietnam, etc.

P.S. My primary is over, but because of certain legal and ethical problems, the incumbent, Charles Taylor may withdraw/be forced out, and I am in the running to be chosen as the replacement nominee for Congress in the 11th District of NC. For more information, see the article below, and my website. I still need your help.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article: "What a Week! What a Week!"

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.