How do you refer to the US’s current activities in Iraq?
It seems weird to me to say we are “at war” in the absence of a Congressional declaration of war, and with essentially no threat within our homeland.
Simply calling something war does not make it so - i.e., the war on drugs.
I guess you could say we are “making war upon” Iraq.
Or are these “military activities”?
Liberation efforts?
Or something else?
Would the activities be characterized differently for “the coalition” than for Iraq?
I think you are splitting hairs. Does it really matter?
We truly have no grasp of the scope of what is happening if discussing the semantics seems important.
newcrasher - Yes, let’s stop talking about any details of the war. They’re just not important. Uh huh. :dubious:
Anyway, back on topic - and maybe this question should be posed in GQ, but: Why did Congress not declare war? Should they have? If so, why? If not, why not?
Inquiring Mars want to know!
Technically speaking i think the last time we declared actual war was WWII… i THINK… its been a while anyway…
Maybe calling it a war is just more glamorous for the media? If I had it my way i think i would call it “The Bush Crusade” ha ha.
Sorry if that shounded harsh. It was not meant too…
I was just thinking…
Iraqi woman weeping that her 18 year old son was killed by an allied airstrike
"Are we “at” war with them or are they “making” war? "
American wife to 4 year old daughter
Don’t worry, even though the 3rd Mechanized Division is just outside of Baghdad, Daddy is safe because the Congress has not declared war"
I didnt say lets not discuss details, I was just pointing out that this was superfluous to anything of relevance.
IIRC congress went ahead and declared war for GulfWar1. The rectification of names is important in that thoughts sometimes are couched in words.
I often use the term “invasion of Iraq.”
It seems really weird to me to consider my country being “at war”, as I go about my daily life exactly the same as I did last month or last year - with the exception that I show an ID somewhat more frequently.
I personally strive for some precision in my vocabulary. And I find myself referring to the current military conflict with some regularity. And I have 3 inquisitive kids keeping me honest!
I think it does matter. For example, some might prefer that this be called a liberation effort, than a war of aggression. Personally, I’m not entirely sure which is necessarily more accurate.
I seem to recall we have recently committed troops to the Phillipines. Are we at war there as well? When does a “skirmish” or “support action” become a “war”?
And the very word “war” carries considerable weight. Suggesting that it occurs for a very important reason. Whereas I am not entirely certain exactly why we are engaged in these particular actions in this place at this time.
No, congress did NOT declare war in Gulf War I. Congress did the same thing they did this time, a resolution authorizing the president to use force. The last time congress voted an official declaration of war was WWII.
The constitution gives congress the sole power to declare war, but the president is commander in chief of the military. They intentionally divided the powers this way. But, if congress does not object to the president using the military this way, there is no constitutional issue. There has to be a dispute between the branches of government for a constitutional issue to arise.
That being said, this current action in Iraq is clearly a war. Korea, Vietnam, and Gulf War I were clearly wars, despite not being officially declared so by congress. However, congress doesn’t bring a war into being by passing a resolution. The war exists, whether congress sees fit to declare it a war or not. Calling a dog’s tail a leg doesn’t magically change the tail into a leg.
Our troops have invaded another country, and they are killing the other country’s troops. We have the intention of overthrowing that nation’s government and instilling a new one. If that’s not war by your definition, then frankly, you have a pretty stupid definition of war.
Jeff
To be technical, the US is not at war with Iraq. We have no problems with the people of Iraq, in fact, we believe that we are liberating them. We are at war with Saddam’s regime who happen to control most of the military. The definition of war is still quite the same, its a matter of who we are “at war” with. Saddam Hussien is NOT Iraq.
OK, so, this is HS Government coming back, and that has been almost four years ago. But isn’t there a time limit that the president can use force w/o an actual declaration of war? Or is the resolution of support enough to give all the time needed/wanted?
Doesn’t the declaration of war affect numerous other pieces of legislation? Like, for instance, whether soldiers of this war are considered veterans?
Wasn’t there a period after Vietnam when soldiers who fought in the war over there returned home to find that they didn’t qualify for veterans’ benefits?
The legislation unanimously passed by Congress last year is sufficient to address this war matter. Every soldier involved will officially be veterans after this conflict, the budget will reflect a way to pay for this war and the president does not have to renew approval after a certain amount of time. We’re in War and basically we are treating Saddam as an illigitimate head of state and we are forceibly ousting him. Its not like we havent done that before, whether for good or bad.
The use of force authorization passed last year was hardly unanimous. In the Senate the vote was 77-23.
On the declaration of war issue, here’s a brilliant answer of mine from another thread:
"Back to the OP, Congress has generally not taken to declaring war (as opposed to authorizing military force) for several reasons. I quote from a report from the Congressional Research Service (I have it on paper, sorry no link):
"'At one time a declaration was deemed a necessary legal prerequisite to a war and was also thought to terminate diplomatic and commercial relations and most treaties between the combatants. But in the modern era the international legal consequences of declarations have become less determinate; and in fact declarations have rarely been issued since World War II. Perhaps most important, neither a declaration nor an authorization is necessary to trigger application of the laws of war, such as the Hague and Geneva Conventions; for that the fact of armed conflict is the controlling circumstance.
"‘With respect to domestic law, a declaration of war automatically brings into effect numerous standby authorities conferring special powers on the President with respect to the military, foreign trade, transportation, communications, manufacturing, enemy aliens, etc. In contrast, no standby authorities appear to be triggered automatically by an authorization for the use of force.’
"A few examples, also quoting: ‘A declaration trigger the Alien Enemy Act, which gives the President substantial discretionary authority over nationals of an enemy state who are in the U.S. It activates special authorities to use electronic surveillance for purposes of gathering foreign intelligence information without court order under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It automatically extends enlistments in the Armed Forces until the end of the war, makes the Coast Guard part of the Navy, gives the President substanital discretion over the appointment and reappointment of commanders, and allows the military priority use of the natural resources on the public lands and the continental shelf.’
“There’s about 117 more pages of this stuff, but I think you should get the idea why Congress does not go around declaring war on everyone.”
Ravenman,
I bandied about the word “unanimously” like a rookie republican. I apologize. The Democratic-led Senate approved the war resolution 77-23 while the House voted for the resolution 296-133, on the previous day. Here’s my cite:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002-10-10-house-iraq_x.htm
My WAG is that this war will all be over before that 60 day limit comes up.
Granted, we’re not at war with the Iraqi people, we’re at war with the regime that currently controls Iraq, just as in Afghanistan we were at war with the Taliban. Nevertheless, it’s still a war.
Jeff
Incidentally, I second that WAG.
Jeff
Actually we’re not at war, it’s the Bush administration who’s at war.