Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

A formal declaration of war could be the first step to victory.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

A Modest Proposal: Let's Declare War!

By Rory O'Connor, AlterNet. Posted September 20, 2006.


A formal declaration of war could be the first step to victory.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Rory O'Connor

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

As a rookie reporter, I once received a letter -- and a lasting lesson -- from a great American. It may seem odd in this highly partisan political age, but I was a war-protesting radical rabblerouser and he was a Vietnam-era Republican senator from Vermont named George Aiken.

I had just written a newspaper article reminding readers of Aiken's famously unheeded advice to two presidents on what they should do about a stupid, divisive, brutal, unnecessary and costly war that was grinding on, mindlessly and incessantly, day after day, year after year. To Sen. Aiken, the solution was simple: "Declare victory and go home."

There was only one problem with what I wrote -- I ascribed the comment to "the late great George Aiken." The letter I subsequently received from the retired but still very much alive Aiken was gracious, thanking me for remembering his dictum but assuring me he was still breathing. Red-faced, I penned an embarrassing correction and vowed never to print an unchecked assumption again.

The most valuable lessons in life are those we learn young. I am reminded of that, and of Sen. Aiken's wisdom, every day now, as the latest body count rolls in and the war grinds on, mindlessly and incessantly, day after day, year after year. When I was young, we had a war just like this current one. The similarities between the two seemed immediately and stunningly obvious to me, and remain so to all but they who refuse to see. This war, like the previous one, is astonishingly stupid, divisive, unnecessary, brutal, costly -- and as yet undeclared.

Call me a stickler for details but … doesn't our Constitution vest in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war? Nevertheless, only five wars have been declared in American history: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II. Beginning with Korea, our presidents have avoided seeking formal congressional declarations of war, instead maintaining that they have the constitutional authority, as commander in chief to use the military for "police actions."

In response to the disastrous 'police action' in Vietnam, of course, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which requires the president to obtain either a declaration of war or a resolution authorizing the use of force from Congress within 60 days of initiating hostilities. Some legal experts maintain that any military action taken without a congressional declaration of war (regardless of the War Powers Resolution) is unconstitutional; however, the constitutionality of the resolution has never been tested, as Congress has always passed the required authorization when requested by the president.

We've now been at (undeclared) war longer than the entirety of World War II. The war against Al Qaeda has progressively morphed into the War against Iraq, to the Global War on Terror, all the way to the "early stages" of the Clash of Civilizations. Yet it appears that the entire enterprise is not only illegal but also unconstitutional at its core.

I therefore have a modest proposal aimed at rectifying this situation: Let's declare war!

Before you rise up and denounce me as a naïve "useful idiot" (from the right) or a warmongering neo-neo-con (from the left), please take a moment at least to consider the obvious advantages of my proposal:

  1. Such an action would first require debate, and then an actual vote, by members of Congress, thus placing them firmly on the record for once either in favor of or against prosecuting the current war;
  2. Passage of a war declaration by Congress would clear up all the legal and constitutional questions surrounding the current "police action" in Iraq; and
  3. The prospect of actually declaring war would force both Congress and our society as a whole to think hard, avoid politically expedient vagueness, and finally figure out precisely who the actual enemy is. After all, we can't just "declare war," we have to declare war on someone or something!

So, who shall it be? Can we declare war on Iraq, now that Saddam is gone and its leaders are our allies? Or shall it be war on Al Qaeda, that amorphous terrorist organizational "base" with tentacles seemingly everywhere? Assuming one can declare war on a person rather than a country, perhaps we could just declare war on Osama? Or, if this really is the beginning of a defining, century-long clash of civilizations, maybe we should just declare war on Islam and be done with it?

Oh yes -- there's one other huge advantage to declaring war instead of just waging it in illegal and unconstitutional fashion. The sooner we actually declare war, the sooner we can, in the immortal words of the now-late but still great Sen. Aiken, "declare victory -- and go home."

Digg!

Filmmaker and journalist Rory O'Connor writes the Media Is A Plural blog.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Modest (semi-Swiftian) Proposal
Posted by: Jayzer on Sep 20, 2006 10:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like Rory O'Connor's semi-Swiftian proposal for pointing out what's been missing from discussions surrounding the "War on Terror" (or as the neocons now want to call it, the "War on Islamofascism") and that is any real declaration of war and thus any substantial debate where it counts: in Congress, in full view of the public. I almost even like his "Let's Declare Victory and Go Home" suggestion----but there's one major flaw.

If there were a real effort to just simply declare victory and go home, there probably wouldn't be anyone truly held accountable for launching a needless war of aggression (so-called "preemptive" war is aggression in plain English) against Iraq. If we just packed up and left and then pretended that all is well, then there need not be any reparations paid for pain and suffering inflicted upon the people of Iraq and Afghanistan nor would there be any war crimes trial, a trial that should (but probably won't) take place unless a decisive defeat and surrender of the aggressor party (the US Government under the Bush junta and their allies in Congress) were to occur. On that last point, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting.

Still, I take O'Connor's Modest Proposal for what it is, even though Jonathan Swift's own Proposal included cannibalizing Irish folk, a situation all too eerily close to what the actual current populations of Iraq and Afghanistan are enduring today. At least, in Swift's version, the killers had the good grace to eat what they killed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gramps
Posted by: gramps on Sep 20, 2006 5:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Trashing the Constitution

Everyone is rightfully concerned about attacks on the Constitution by the present administration. And it is time that they take notice of the most dangerous attacks on the Constitution that began with the Truman administration. Clause II section eight gives the right to declare war to Congress alone. This is not an amendment it is in the main body of the constitution. This is why the Korean war was called a “police action” when it was in reality a bloody war. While Congress has the right to declare war it does not have the right to violate the Constitution by ceding this right to the President. The President is only allowed to respond immediately to an attack on The United States itself. But there has been no attacks by a foreign government on the United States since Pearl Harbor except the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in international waters. This attack not only was ignored but was covered up by the Congress, The White House, and the Corporate media.

Since the end of WWII we have been in a constant state of war and now we have over 2500 American troops killed in Iraq. There was no difference at all between Shock and Awe, and Hitler's Blitzkrieg against Poland that started WWII, nor the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. It was a sudden assault on a defenseless population followed by military occupation. Exactly like the Nazi occupation of France in WWII that installed a puppet government, (Vichy), Americans did the same in Iraq. As in France a resistance movement developed like the Free French called an insurgency. It has resulted in Iraqis killing Iraqis considered collaborators and Americans have become criminals and torturers as were their counterparts in the Reich.

It should be known that every Congressperson who voted for giving the president the right to wage war without a formal declaration of war is guilty of violating his oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States. It would be well for the American people to recognize the full complicity of every section of our government in this deliberate violation of the Constitution. They should recognize that this violation of their rights is not only killing Iraqis but killing Americans and looting our treasury. There is no federal law against murder. This has been left up to the states and the only way that the federal government could punish the killers of Emmet Till and other southern atrocities was to accuse them of violating the victims constitutional rights. The only way they could convict Al Capone was by the untouchables going after him for not paying taxes. Your constitutional rights are important. Don't let them be taken away from you by a horde of greedy bribe taking politicians.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: gramps Posted by: Jayzer
Why not?
Posted by: Edward George on Sep 23, 2006 2:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since many groups we are at odds are not named countries we will have to declare war on any and all named groups that have at any time said or done anything our top officials didn't like, and the war will continue until they surrender unconditionally.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]