Once again the USA is gearing up for war. Once again (every time since WW2) the Constitution is being ignored and the President and Congress are not debating a Declaration of War.
It is far better for the country if major War/Peace decisions are deliberated and voted upon in Congress. We came close to doing this in Gulf War 1, 2 and Afghanistan - but still no official declaration of war. We went to war with Libya under Obama without any debate in Congress. A war against Assad in Syria was not launched because Obama talked about getting permission from Congress - and then discovered that the support for this is just not there.
The Constitution calls for this for many good reasons. Right now, it looks like Obama and Congress are jointly deciding not to even have a war resolution. So everyone gets to whine and nobody bears complete responsibility under our system of government.
It drives me nuts when we have a sound process for dealing with major wars - and both parties jointly decide to evade their responsibilities.
With a Declaration of War everyone gets put on record. With a DoW the public and express their views to their representatives in Congress. With a DoW everything gets put on the table. With a DoW you have a lot more trouble going back and whining that you were "mislead" or that "you would have done it far differently."
I think the USA should have a DoW against Al Quada and perhaps against ISIS. I also think that both parties bear the responsibility of not using DoWs in my lifetime (covers everything after Korean War).
I think part of the problem seems to be the definition of what a war is. I'm not even sure myself what it means any more.
I agree with the reasoning behind the OP. The system does not seem to be set up for it. Nations cannot declare war without a UN security council resolution. You can pretty much count on Russia and China blocking such a resolution.
AQ and IS are not legitimate states anyway.
Is it really war? It seems to be limited air strikes against armed fighters.
In the modern climate politicians that approve a DoW are unlikely to win the next election. Just like Churchill was called a war monger, then lost. Maybe the socialization needs to be that it is OK to use force if the other side is using force. Many people seem to have the idea the use of force is always unethical. They live in a dream world.
I'm reluctant to contradict Airboy, for whom I have a great deal of respect. And I have to admit I'm not well-versed in the merits of either side of the debate.
But I do remember a bit of history.
The current situation has historical precedent.
Very early in our nation's history we fought two wars against Muslim radicals on the Barbary Coast. (They decided we were infidels, and therefore fair game to be pirated.) In the first one they declared war against us. We did not reciprocate, but did dispatch warships to shut them down. And we succeeded.
The second "war" was took place during the War of 1812 when they decided we were too weak/distracted to care what they did. Again we didn't declare war on them, and again we defeated them militarily.
This is early enough in our history that the Founding Fathers were still alive and kicking. I'm not up to speed on why no DoW was used - maybe the conflict was perceived as short/limited - I don't know. But there is clearly a precedent for the president dispatching force without a DoW in some instances.
Should we have one here? I'll run some traps and see what I can find.
IIRC we also didnt have a DOW when we beat them down in the Philippines.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on September 13, 2014, 10:31:53 AM
IIRC we also didnt have a DOW when we beat them down in the Philippines.
We've gone a lot of places to administer a beat-down without a DoW. We occupied Haiti for 20 years without one.
I'm a huge fan of Constitutional restrictions on governmental power, but DoWs are not cut and dry.
Many of ISIS's financial backers appear to come from Saudi Arabia. Would a DoW on ISIS do any good if you still can't touch those backers?
Quote from: LongBlade on September 13, 2014, 10:20:19 AM
I'm reluctant to contradict Airboy, for whom I have a great deal of respect. And I have to admit I'm not well-versed in the merits of either side of the debate.
But I do remember a bit of history.
The current situation has historical precedent.
Very early in our nation's history we fought two wars against Muslim radicals on the Barbary Coast. (They decided we were infidels, and therefore fair game to be pirated.) In the first one they declared war against us. We did not reciprocate, but did dispatch warships to shut them down. And we succeeded.
The second "war" was took place during the War of 1812 when they decided we were too weak/distracted to care what they did. Again we didn't declare war on them, and again we defeated them militarily.
This is early enough in our history that the Founding Fathers were still alive and kicking. I'm not up to speed on why no DoW was used - maybe the conflict was perceived as short/limited - I don't know. But there is clearly a precedent for the president dispatching force without a DoW in some instances.
Should we have one here? I'll run some traps and see what I can find.
You have to look at the founding of the UN. Members are not the ultimate law as nations regarding the use of force. Nations also cannot decide it is great when it suits their agenda, then ignore it when it does not. They can withdraw from it, going back to being the ultimate decider for their nation. Given Russia is going to be a spoiler it may make sense to modify the security council. Such as countries invading other countries have no power on the SC regarding that conflict.
National interest trumps UN corruption.
Maybe people should ask their political parties (all of them) what they think the value of the UN is.
Quote from: airboy on September 13, 2014, 09:07:41 AMOnce again the USA is gearing up for war. Once again (every time since WW2) the Constitution is being ignored and the President and Congress are not debating a Declaration of War.
While there certainly needs to be a Congressional act authorizing the use of force, I don't think there can be a true declaration of war since there's no recognized 'state' on the other end. It's certainly a relic of the Westphalian system, but a "state of war" exists between nations, and to day, AFAIK, ISIS is not a recognized state in any fashion.
For whatever complaints people might have about Bush 43, he did seek - and get - Congressional approval for action in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obama never sought Congressional approval for Libya, even after it exceeded the 90 days allowed under the War Powers Act. He's got legal authority to authorize
some action in Iraq against ISIS, but within a certain time limit, after which the action is no longer legal. But it is unlikely that a 'friendly' Congress will call him onto the carpet for it.
For anyone interested in a peek into Obama's head.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/world/middleeast/paths-to-war-then-and-now-haunt-obama.html?_r=1
I understand the counter-arguments to a DoW. But I disagree with them both from a Constitutional standpoint but also in terms of having a civil society.
The USA did declare war on the Barbary Pirates and I think that a DoW could be carefully crafted for this situation.
Quote from: airboy on September 16, 2014, 04:55:25 PM
I understand the counter-arguments to a DoW. But I disagree with them both from a Constitutional standpoint but also in terms of having a civil society.
The USA did declare war on the Barbary Pirates and I think that a DoW could be carefully crafted for this situation.
Thanks, I stand corrected :)
I hear you. Haven't spent much time looking into it yet. But I'll see what I can do.
Quote from: LongBlade on September 16, 2014, 06:09:30 PM
Quote from: airboy on September 16, 2014, 04:55:25 PM
I understand the counter-arguments to a DoW. But I disagree with them both from a Constitutional standpoint but also in terms of having a civil society.
The USA did declare war on the Barbary Pirates and I think that a DoW could be carefully crafted for this situation.
Thanks, I stand corrected :)
I hear you. Haven't spent much time looking into it yet. But I'll see what I can do.
After you finish writing it up we can slip it under the Capitol Building door in the early AM. Maybe one of the congresscritters will see it as he/she walks in. :coolsmiley:
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on September 13, 2014, 06:14:48 PM
Quote from: LongBlade on September 13, 2014, 10:20:19 AM
I'm reluctant to contradict Airboy, for whom I have a great deal of respect. And I have to admit I'm not well-versed in the merits of either side of the debate.
But I do remember a bit of history.
The current situation has historical precedent.
Very early in our nation's history we fought two wars against Muslim radicals on the Barbary Coast. (They decided we were infidels, and therefore fair game to be pirated.) In the first one they declared war against us. We did not reciprocate, but did dispatch warships to shut them down. And we succeeded.
The second "war" was took place during the War of 1812 when they decided we were too weak/distracted to care what they did. Again we didn't declare war on them, and again we defeated them militarily.
This is early enough in our history that the Founding Fathers were still alive and kicking. I'm not up to speed on why no DoW was used - maybe the conflict was perceived as short/limited - I don't know. But there is clearly a precedent for the president dispatching force without a DoW in some instances.
Should we have one here? I'll run some traps and see what I can find.
You have to look at the founding of the UN. Members are not the ultimate law as nations regarding the use of force. Nations also cannot decide it is great when it suits their agenda, then ignore it when it does not. They can withdraw from it, going back to being the ultimate decider for their nation. Given Russia is going to be a spoiler it may make sense to modify the security council. Such as countries invading other countries have no power on the SC regarding that conflict.
While we have our issues with Russia over Ukraine and Syria, there is common cause between the West and Russia regarding IS. Don't forget that Russia is much, much closer to IS. Russia has also been the target of Islamist terrorism, so I doubt if they'd worry about the West having a slap at IS. Also Al Assad, and Israel is the enemy of IS. Given that the enemy of my enemy is my friend the irony is incredible. :o ;D
ACLU is asking for support in forcing Congress to vote on the issue: https://ssl.capwiz.com/aclu-action/issues/alert/?alertid=63314466&type=CA&ms=web_nationalsecurity_140917_BOR
Quote from: Staggerwing on September 16, 2014, 06:36:04 PM
After you finish writing it up we can slip it under the Capitol Building door in the early AM. Maybe one of the congresscritters will see it as he/she walks in. :coolsmiley:
If they're not too busy ignoring their constituents and getting fellated by lobbyists, mind.
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on September 17, 2014, 01:45:00 PM
Quote from: Staggerwing on September 16, 2014, 06:36:04 PM
After you finish writing it up we can slip it under the Capitol Building door in the early AM. Maybe one of the congresscritters will see it as he/she walks in. :coolsmiley:
If they're not too busy ignoring their constituents and getting fellated by lobbyists, mind.
Oh dear. It sounds like the US may be about to start getting Independence movements for almost the same reason Scotland has. ;)
some thoughts on the matter
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-obama-needs-congress-to-approve-this-war/2014/09/17/26de9d3e-3dc9-11e4-b0ea-8141703bbf6f_story.html
Did the decline of the Roman Republic encourage people to think more unilaterally leading to the Roman Empire? If the politics has become so toxic that the Prez thinks anything he does will be blocked for spite, will it lead to a culture of presidents taking more and more unilateral action? Once they become accustomed to the position their tendency is to believe whatever they want is right for the country after all. The decline must be due to the assholes blocking everything. I am not just talking about this Prez. They are all going to react the same to that situation. All through time.
Actually, Gollum, on the other side of the planet, is doing the same thing, moving to Empire.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on September 18, 2014, 09:44:14 AM
Did the decline of the Roman Republic encourage people to think more unilaterally leading to the Roman Empire? If the politics has become so toxic that the Prez thinks anything he does will be blocked for spite, will it lead to a culture of presidents taking more and more unilateral action? Once they become accustomed to the position their tendency is to believe whatever they want is right for the country after all. The decline must be due to the assholes blocking everything. I am not just talking about this Prez. They are all going to react the same to that situation. All through time.
The US House passed a bill providing funding for arming the "moderate" Syrian insurgants with bi-partisan support from both parties. Because they debated and voted, a lot of issues were discussed that would not have otherwise been covered.
Still, wars never turn out as you think they will. And it is almost impossible to have "advisors" and "air power" and not have troops killed - even though this may be in small numbers. This is one of the reasons why I think a DoW is so important.
because arming radical muslims has worked so well in the past..... :idiot2:
.
Quote from: eyebiter on September 24, 2014, 08:39:16 AM
Departing Afghan President Hamid Karzai blames the United States in his farewell speech
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/24/world/asia/hamid-karzai-afghanistan.html?_r=0
Saw that last night. What a douche.
on the upside I dont think he'll survive long.
Karzai is a total d-bag.