I'm not keen on our default system of allowing a president to start a war without Congress, though I understand there can be a need for speed. In this case, there've been hostilities for years without official declarations, with a bit of plausible deniability. There's never been doubt about their ultimate goal, though. I wonder how the powers-that-be classify that kind of war-without-declaration. Words matter less than actions, and they figure that going head to head with armies isn't going to work, but having puppets lob stuff at us saves their forces. It still seems like war.
I'm guessing dirty bomb at some point. That was probably in the cards anyhow.
6 comments:
It's interesting to me that we've been trading missiles with the Houthis for years but no one talked about going to war or the need for declarations of war. Why is Iran different?
I'm not saying you're wrong, or even really addressing your opinions on this blog, but rather, broadly, it seems like no one was talking about us "going to war" when we were blowing up Houthi stuff. We've attacked Iran fewer times, but now, suddenly, it's "We're going to war!"
Also, how is this different than Iran taking our embassy in 1979? That was an act of war, but we didn't go to war. So an act of war does not always mean we go to war.
I have lots of questions about how we view and talk about these things. I'll go read some on this and am certainly open to suggestions for reading.
I'm open to suggestions too. The formalities involved in "embassy is the soil of the foreign country" and "declaration of war" and so on seem a little abstract and out of touch with the realities on the ground. A small group of terrorists are outlaws to one set but "our people and don't you dare touch them" to another.
Governments seem, among other functions, to be used to provide a uniform interface for resolving disagreements -- but when the government doesn't even come close to managing the violence within that reaches without its own borders, who decides what is "just crime" and what is "intended by the government"?
And where's the line for deciding what is active support for attacks on you vs active support for that clan's hereditary enemies that they just happen to be using on you?
And of course there are Great Game considerations where you endure some attacks because retaliating threatens some other plans...
I've been looking at our early wars and there are interesting parallels. Apparently, Islamic aggression was the cause for rebuilding the US Navy and our first three wars outside the Americas.
The American-Algerian War of 1785-95: We didn't try to fight. We just tried to negotiate the release of captured and enslaved American sailors. This resulted in the establishment of the Dept. of the Navy in 1798.
The First Barbary War of 1801-5: We continued to negotiate tribute to the Barbary states in order to not be attacked and to get the release of enslaved Americans. We did finally get a navy together. Newly-elected Pres. Jefferson refused to pay tribute and Tripoli declared war on the US. Congress never declared war, but did authorize "the President to instruct the commanders of armed American vessels to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli 'and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify.'" So, no declaration of war, but something more like an authorization for use of military force, it seems.
The Second Barbary War, 1815: Algiers had continued extracting tribute from the US, so Pres. Madison asked for a declaration of war, but did not get one. Congress again simply authorized the President to take any actions necessary to protect American seamen and commerce in the Mediterranean and Atlantic.
Two things stand out relevant to this discussion for me:
The Barbary states stated quite plainly that they had the right to attack any non-Muslim ship or area that did not pay tribute. This seems to still hold true, and to have held true since the early 7th century.
Even in the beginning, Congress used something like AUMFs instead of declarations of war. I don't know why, though. It would be interesting to read any notes taken during the debates on this.
From Constitution.congress.gov: "As a result of these and other international legal developments, declarations of war have become anachronistic in modern international law and relations."
Nice. I'll have to spend some time on that site.
Apparently, we are at war with Yemen -- at least, they declared war on us after we bombed Iran. I'm not sure the source is reliable, however.
On one way the executive branch interpretation of the Declare War clause differs from the legislative:
"Although OLC’s prevailing view is that the Declare War Clause limits presidential power, the executive branch has also reasoned that only prolonged and substantial military engagements rise to the level of what OLC calls war in the constitutional sense.8 The executive branch has never publicly concluded that a military operation crossed the threshold into an unconstitutional war, but it has opined that a variety of military operations do not reach this level.9 For example, OLC has concluded that deployments of 20,000 ground forces, a two-week air campaign including 2,300 combat missions, and an air campaign involving over 600 missiles and precision-guided munitions did not amount to wars in the constitutional sense.10 Although Congress enacted authorizations for use of military force in the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War of 1991, the post-September 11 conflict of Afghanistan, and the 2003 Iraq War, each presidential administration claimed that it possessed independent constitutional authority to engage in each of those conflicts even if Congress had not authorized it.11 Accordingly, it is unclear whether any military action short of a total war akin to World Wars I and II would, in the executive branch’s view, rise to the level of war in the constitutional sense that requires congressional authorization."
That's a bit frightening ...
Post a Comment