Replies

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.

"ZB" is correct in the same way that a judge is correct when he let's a murderer walk because his Miranda rights weren't read properly. The President declined to ask for a formal declaration of war because he didn't want to be perceived as "making war on a Muslim nation", and because he wanted a near-unanimous vote in Congress on a "Use of Force" resolution to show that "the American people were united behind him". As unsatisfactory as a "Use of Force Resolution" is to those of us who would like to see those who have committed treason and sedition behind bars right now (as they might well have been in a declared war), it is none the less "war by any other name", just as Korea was a war (even if Harrya$$ Truman called it a "police action").

There is no such thing as a "formal declaration of war." The Constitution does not specify precise language for that, as it does, for instance, specify the exact language for the Presidential Oath of Office.

More "formal" language was used, as my article points out, in the declarations of war against Japan and Germany. However, that extra language has NO influence on whether Congress has acted adequately as required by the Constitution. I suggest you read my UPI article, linked above, by the kind offices of another Freeper.

John / Billybob

I'm not arguing a hyper-legal thing here, that the declaration wasn't worded correctly, or wasn't passed or anything like that.

What I am arguing is that the level of threat, as percieved by the average Joe doesn't rise to the level of requiring a war in response. And that because of that we have not actually fought much of a war in Iraq. Instead we let the opposing side slink off, put Saddam on trial and are now in PREVENT defense to stop a civil war from breaking out.

Actual war, to my mind, involves a clear enemy who you go out with all due haste to destroy utterly. We have a good track record at winning real wars (American Revolution, Civil War, WW2, Korea fought to a standstill).

Because we don't see anyone as that bad we're not really using our Army to fight, they are heavily armed police and sacrifical targets of opportunity for Jihadi losers. That's unfortunate.

This is what happens when you declare war on a concept, or military tactic (terror) or even a group which is hostile but indistinguishable from those surrounding it.

If we had declared War on Iraq that would have made sense. All of Iraq would have been our target and we could have extended the War (blowing things up, killing men with guns on sight) for quite a while. We could have demanded complete unilateral surrender (like we did in Japan).

Wars have a way of being resolved. If you totally commit (as the USA, Japan, England, Russia and Germany did in WW2) someone is going to win and someone is going to lose rather quickly.

Low level military-as-police can't tell the good-guys from the bad (and care) pseudo-wars can go on indefinately.