War?
I don't have much time to go into this deeper but...I keep hearing 'bout King George's War Power Provisions, but I'm wondering about which war, and when it ends. I remember Congress declaring war on Afghanistan and Iraq, but aren't we done in Afghanistan, and isn't Iraq "mission accomplished?" Since both states now have new governments of their own, aren't those wars over? I get we need to be there, but we were in Japan and Germany long after the "war" was over. I don't remember congress declaring war on terror (if I'm wrong please point me in the right direction). So far its been like the war on poverty, a named goal. If we're still at war against Afghanistan and Iraq, when are those wars over? If its against the terrorists, which ones, and when is that war over? If all these new acts are due to war, I think its fair to define those wars so we can understand the scope of the issues. If the elected officials aren't defining the scope, I think its fair to ask "why not?" I also recall a 2000 debate where King George said he wouldn't put the US into a war without a clear exit strategy. I think its time let us know what that is for Afghanistan, Iraq, and the possible war on terror.
Posts
3 comments:
I think you make a good point, but ask a question that cannot be answered. The war on terror is unlike anything else we've ever faced militarily. There are no precedents. To many it is very clear that a war goes on and is being fought by by our troops. To others, they don't see a standing army in our path so they say we are nation building. I say they are the same thing. Terrorism breeds in communities where the individual has limited freedom. Freedom will not destroy terror, but it will weaken it. And it is our only weapon.
There is nothing wrong with a call for new definitions for our current struggle. But I don't see how they would change much. Is it a war? Is it a mission? Is it is an intervention? I can't get myself to care what you call it. Just keep it going.
Its not the definition that ultimately concerns me, its the process. The reason Congress declares war is a check on the extra powers that a war time President has. Congressional decision on war and peace is crucial to our system. If the President can just take war powers without Congress declaring war, this signals a massive shift in our checks-and-balances. I agree with Mr. Malone, the name is irellevant, I just want Congress to decide when the President has extra power (and when to take it back to normal), not the President. Checks and balances, its one of America's cornerstones. If there's no formal declaration of war, then the President has no basis for taking war time powers. If Iraq and Afghanistan are over (and I think from "war" perspective they are), let the President make a new case for an actual declaration of war on terror, Al Queada, Shining Path, whatever. Then let Congress decide. I just want bookends on extra-Presidential power. I don't see them, and that's why I wrote my original post.
The bookends will come from the people. When the people don't buy the argument anymore, they will dump the guy making it.
Post a Comment