Does Bush have to call it a War with Iraq? And, could he by-pass the UN by calling it something other than a War? - Jinx
The United States has not Declared War officially since war was declared on Germany in December, 1941, the day after we declared War on Japan. Calling it a War does not make it so. It has nothing to do with by-passing the UN.
In short, Uncle Bill, did we go to the UN for Korea and Vietnam? Did we give the nations a chance in a diplomatic fashion and explore other options. Or, did we go through proper channels for these “wars”, or did we just act fast to stop the “domino theory” of Communism in Asia?
- Jinx
Korea WAS a U.N. Action, don’t you ever watch M.A.S.H. reruns? There is no “proper channel” for wars outside of any sovereign government. No U.N. approval is needed.
The Cold War was a very different and more touchy situation.
For one, involvement in both of those wars was a response to invasion or rebellion. Getting UN support was a matter of diplomacy, maintaining relations and stopping the Soviets and the West from going at each other directly.
As we’ve discussed a lot recently, there is no real international law defining declaring war, and no one needs permission to enter into war, so defined or not.
The Korean was was definitely a UN police action in response to North Korea’s invasion of South Korea, and it was a pretty complex diplomatic and political situation between the USSR, China, and the West. None of the above were happy with each other.
From www.koreanwar.com (IIRC, I closed the window):
It is all very hazy, but at the time China and the USSR were in a lover’s quarrel (so to speak), and Britain and the United States acted in the name of the United Nations, joined later by the rest of the gang. There was a good deal of political manuevering involved in passing these resolutions, largely due to the Soviet boycott when the war started. If you want a timeline:
http://www.bl.uk/education/projects/korea/ref_timeline.htm
As far as I know, Korea is really the only war where the United Nations was involved as a fighting force actively launching invasions and the like, though this was not a technical declaration of war (the UN not being a nation and all).
Back to the OP…
He can call it what he wants. Witness: Desert Shield/Storm. He/his administration chose the term “war” specifically, likely because it is a stronger term chosen to be more threatening, but equally as important, this is a war more than a police action or “conflict.”
We are going to Iraq without (real) provocation with the express stated intention of destroying the government and replacing it with an acceptable one.
Whereas Korea, Vietnam, and Kuwait (and probably Afghanistan) were all defined by US officials as police actions, in that it is a conflict we got involved in to maintain “law” - stop the invasion of another country or rebellion, or arrest terrorists who had carried out an attack. In the case of Vietnam, at least, you can challenge the intent (quite reguarly done, since we didn’t allow elections for fear of Communists winning - go democracy).
Most of the time, a declaration of war is a formality, or a legal act of a congress or parliament. This has largely fallen out of fashion, with the definition of military force changing constantly. Secondly, many nations (namely, Germany) refuse to get into a firefight, much less a declared war. If you want their cooperation, you aren’t going to ask them to declare war.
Communist China didn’t have a vote in the UN yet, Taiwan had it in China’s name. Russia was busy boycotting the Security Council, so it couldn’t veto.
Er, yea. Thanks for the clarification. I could have made that more obvious. 