Following Adams’ 1798-1800 undeclared ‘Quasi-War’ with France, a naval war in the Caribbean which included actions between USN and French Navy warships as well as actions involving privateers. That action was controversial, the Barbary Wars weren’t controversy free either. But opposition did not focus on a specific claim that the actions were ‘unconstitutional’.
This list on wikipedia, though it omits a number of military actions other than declared wars, especially in the 19th century, makes it clear the 2003 Gulf War was one a long series of wars which did not involve formal declarations but were specifically authorized by Congress, the Quasi-War being the first. You can complain that the administrations in charge got those authorizations under false pretenses or did things with the authorizations other than what Congress really intended, but it’s basically ridiculous to call them ‘unconstitutional’ or inherently ‘illegal’.
Which is again besides a number of actions starting pretty early in the 19th century (I mentioned some before) where Congress wasn’t involved at all, not authorizing them, not funding them.
Undeclared US wars are not remotely a new thing, nor uses of force by the executive branch claimed to be be below the threshold of ‘war’ where Congress isn’t involved. Calling either of those categories ‘war crimes’ on a some constitutional legalistic basis is ridiculous. You can take the ‘above it all’ attitude that war/military action is ‘criminal’ because people get killed (and virtually never 100% official combatants, if you even think that makes any difference, uniformed combatants are still people). But ‘unconstitutional’/‘illegal’ for non-formally declared wars of recent times doesn’t really distinguish them from wars back to the US founding (the War of Independence wasn’t declared as such either).
Undeclared US wars lack popular support and are thus lost. A lack of a Congressional declaration shows the conflict isn’t an existential threat and thus isn’t really worth civilian backing. What campaigns has the US “won” since 1945? Panama and Grenada, right. With a declaration, “victory” means the other side surrenders. Without a declaration, what do we expect “victory” to look like? Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq?
What’s your take on the Korean War, RioRico? If you take the goal of the war to be a communist North Korean takeover of non-communist South Korea, with the US/UN goal being to prevent that, it was a victory for the US/UN side. And while the overall conflict hasn’t ended, South Korea’s still there and there hasn’t been a “hot” war on the Korean peninsula since, so it definitely ain’t Afghanistan or Iraq either. Conversely, if you insist that the only “proper” end to a war is enemy surrender, the Korean War was clearly not that either as North Korea’s still there too.
This is IMHO so I’ll skip cites now. DPRK is still in a state of war with the US and RoK. The US contributed 90% of UN military personnel but didn’t declare war, instead labeling it a “police action”. That’s not an existential threat requiring serious response. US troops on the ground did not feel supported. Many were found to have fired into the air rather than at enemies. They weren’t cowards; this just wasn’t their fight, nor their nation’s.
My take? IMHO had Truman called on Congress to declare war, the US populace would have supported winning that war. How it would have played out long-term, I can’t say. But the war continues after seven decades and no end is in sight.
The thread is pretty done, but in the interest of accuracy, I want to correct my statement. The US did in fact formally declare war on Japan, Germany, and Italy in Dec 1941. The resolution passed by congress states that explicitly. It starts out by recognizing that a state of war exists between the US and Japan (there were 2 resolutions, one for Japan and one for Germany and Italy) which is what I remembered. But the resolution goes on to state that the US formally declares war.
This is incorrect. In fact Congress declared war on terrorism, but also, utilizing military force without a Declaration is not a War crime. Nor is it UnConstitutional.
I’d say Obama wasnt guilty of anything, also Clinton, Carter, etc. In fact, in reality, likely only the Shrub and maybe Reagan would have a hard time in the Hague.
If say- Obama- committed war crimes then pretty much most of the worlds leaders would be there with him.
Jackson advocated the removal of Indians to west of the Mississippi and then signed the Indian Removal Act, which was the legal basis for the Trail of Tears.
That’s true. But other Indian removals were done without such a large cost in suffering and deaths. The Cherokee removal was noted for the many deaths etc, caused by incompetence and also corruption. Harrisons regime was noted for both. Harrison was also a noted Indian hater, so he didnt give a crap the Indians were dying.
Jackson wasnt a crook, wasnt incompetent and he didn’t hate Indians. Earlier moves during his time in office weren’t so bad.
Of course the whole idea of moving tribes was often a bad one, but it was distressingly common back then.
I am no fan of Ford, but he just had a brain fart that day. It was obvious to me that he wanted to say “Western Europe” but it came out “Eastern Europe.” Even if he realized the mistake in real time - and maybe he didn’t - he was incapable of losing face by admitting it.