Well, if you mean in the US, we’ve been using air strikes instead of full-on invasions and not declaring war for decades now. From a humanitarian perspective, it does the least harm, assuming you are going to do anything militarily at all. Full invasions are much more disruptive and involve much larger losses of life than air strikes or, recently, drone strikes. I’m not sure what your definition of ‘kill large numbers of people’ is, exactly, but the drone strikes kill relatively small numbers of people compared to any military alternative.
I’m not trying to ‘downgrade the definition of war’, but your post said “The only reason we didn’t escalate to a ground war with Syria is that he made the “mistake” of trying to get authorization from Congress, something we just don’t do anymore”. I thought it was clear that we were discussing “ground war”, as opposed to bombings or missile strikes. My impression is that we still very much do obtain Congressional authorizations for “ground wars” and that you are mistaken on this point.
I agree with you that the President will sometimes order the military to engage in airstrikes and will do so without Congressional authorization.
Does that clarify things?
In a word, no:
Additional operations since 2003 have been tacked on to the 2001 AUMF, however, because it is not limited to a specific country:
Primarily, no. The bulk of our military actions have been done via drone strikes and bombing campaigns. There have been a limited number of ground troops employed, however.
Then I think we largely agree.
Agreed. An analysis by the Council on Foreign Relations in 2014 showed 500 drone strikes outside of Iraq and Afghanistan killed 3,674 people. Even considering the 90% or so civilian casualty rate, it’s still an improvement over the million or so civilians that have died in Iraq.
You really didn’t mean this did you? I’m hoping (really) that you just got carried away. Because if you really believe this, your judgement is truly in question.
Well, to be fair, he missed a couple opportunities to pound the war drums, with his treaty with Iran, and lifting the embargo on Cuba.
Was there an answer in there??
Ask a half-assed question… get a half-assed answer.
Random aside, I keep reading your name as splifflog. I think it would be funnier if it were spliff-log.
nm
What will happen to the price of petroleum if tensions rise sharply on the Korean peninsula? What players on the world stage will benefit from miscalculations by Kim or Trump?
Who will be Trump’s handlers on this visit to Asia? Do Mattis and the Mad Dog have a firm grip on the President? I’ll assume they’re keeping the biscuit very secure, but our adversaries will also assume that, so this may be a good time for them to hatch any plot. The showman’s tweets will be watched closely, but what if he stops tweeting altogether?
I read an article earlier that, no joke, they plan to bring the Presidents favorite foods with them, so that he doesn’t have to eat weird ferriner fair and that he won’t be thrown off stride (or have a tantrum I guess) as a result. I guess the fact he won’t be able watch his usual fair of cable ‘news’ is also going to have him riled up, so making sure he has fried mac and cheese and McDonald’s are just prudent. Normally, reading something like that would be a WTF?!? moment, but, honestly, with this president, I just shrug and say ‘well, that’s probably a good idea’.
Every day is just a higher jump over the shark when we are this far through the looking glass…
:smack: Kelly and the Mad Dog.
I’m just imagining a world with cloning technology, where we actually have two Mattis’s. That’d be awesome. 
And here we go again:
H.R. McMaster pushes to add North Korea to list of state sponsors of terrorism
Seems like they’re covering the bases just in case anyone objects when they attack North Korea without Congressional approval. Nothing to see here, just another operation in the War on Terror. It’s fine, it’s totally covered by the authorization we got 16 years ago for another country.
Serving up another nothing burger I see. Per your cite:
“Re-designating North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism would be largely of symbolic significance. North Korea is heavily and increasingly sanctioned for its nuclear and missile activity in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions.”
Do you really think that the President will just snap his fingers and an invasion of North Korea will begin an hour later?
If you’re willing to take people at their literal word in a press conference, and aren’t cognizant of ulterior motives and possible ancillary benefits that actions can have, then yes, this is a nothing burger and there’s no productive conversation to be had here.
However, if you have some meaningful analysis to offer in regards to why this would, or wouldn’t, be used to justify adding North Korea as the 11th country in which we employ military force using the justification that they are state sponsors of terrorism - the other 10 are listed above - I look forward to hearing it.
I think the bigger risk remains an unknown, and that is when N. Korea will decide to push their button.
Will it be the continued rhetoric of the POTUS that will trigger them to act? It could be, but I think they would use Trump’s words as an exuse for action. They are not that stupid. They understand Mr. T is the way he is, and is missing support form at least half of the US. So while they act alarmed at his ‘threats’. I think they use the banter more as a tool to ratchet up the doom & gloom.
On a related topic, though on a different train of thought, I wonder if NK would be open to a large business deal with China. Like having Chinese manufacturing plants and employing their own people to work in them.
Maybe in time and after some trading with the Western world they will gradually be agreeable to maintaining a reasonable defense system, but in line with a UN backed agreement. This would reduce influence from Russia, and help them achieve a more stable strategic position, and more alliances with friendly nations. More importantly, have them more engaged but resistant to sell weapons to our enemies.
I understand this idea is probably ‘pie in the sky’, as I admit ignorance with regards to Asian nations and how they would deal with each other.
I could see something like that happening, if the Kim dynasty ended with no successor, and someone reasonable and moderate took over. Unfortunately that’s not likely to happen given that Kim Jong-un has two siblings and three children.
As far as the most likely scenario for war erupting, I think the biggest danger is the increased tension. With their military and ours on high alert, standing head-to-head, and both performing military exercises along the border and in the air, it’s a recipe for disaster. All it takes is one pilot or one soldier deciding the other side is attacking, or has violated the border, for shots to be fired, and that escalating out of control into a full scale war.
I wouldn’t rule out Trump deciding to do it to “defend” us when we haven’t been attacked - that’s just how he is - but I would say the odds of us going to war with North Korea by accident are actually fairly high right now.
I would agree, killing the ruler, and capturing his potential replacements would be about the only way to freeze the dynasty .
Considering, any success of the US or it’s allies to topple a government, in the past, involved winning a war first. That’s another matter, considering no treaty exists that North Korea has to (or would) comply with. We could win a war, but at a terrible price that would leave a legacy of chaos and death for the next several generations. That is assuming the world’s population would even survive that long. The first to succumb in such a war, may well be the lucky ones.