Quite a few people have commented in John Derbyshire’s apology for supporting the war in Iraq.
I haven’t seen anyone deny Derbyshire’s suggestion regarding his National Review colleagues who still publicly support the war that
If wired up to a polygraph and asked the question: “Supposing you could wind the movie back to early 2003, would you still attack Iraq?� any affirmative answers would have those old needles a-jumping and a-skipping all over the graph paper.
but then I haven’t looked hard. I’d be interested if anyone can point to any examples [1].
My main interest, like that of many others is in Derbyshire’s reason for recanting his support. While he wanted a war with Iraq, his idea was that the US should drop a lot of bombs, demonstrate that it’s a power to be feared and then leave, without wasting time on futile projects like nation-building. As lots of commenters have pointed out, Derbyshire’s position is worse, in moral terms, than that of most of those who continue to support the war.
It does however, raise some important issues that go to the heart of the debate between supporters and opponents of the Iraq war and the debate over war and peace in general.
In the leadup to the Iraq war, many different arguments were presented for and against going to war, and many different predictions were made about the likely consequences of war. People supported war for a range of reasons, some of which were logically inconsistent, and the same was true of people who opposed war. Many people made many predictions, many of which turned out to be wrong. However, there is a fundamental asymmetry here.
Among the supporters of war were people like Derbyshire, who wanted to reduce large parts of Iraq for rubble as revenge for the September 11 attacks (the absence of any proof of a direct link being, for many, part of the attraction), believers in the WMD threat who wanted to destroy the WMD threat and leave, militarists like Rumsfeld who wanted to use Iraq as a testing ground and permanent base for a new era of American military dominance, rightwing ideologues who expected to transform Iraq into a bastion of free-market economics and support for Israel, ruled by some pliant type like Chalabi, and decent leftists who who saw the invasion as a step towards a secular democracy that would bring the Iraqi left to power. While some of these groups might perhaps have reached a satisfactory accommodation, assuming a military victory, they could not all do so. Yet they all supported the war.
Of course, the opponents of war were a similarly disparate group, including isolationists and international realists who regarded it as an unproductive use of US state power, a large group (including most on the moderate left) who thought that the human costs of war would outweigh any benefits, opponents of a unilateral war carried out without UN support, advocates of national sovereignty, non-interference in internal affairs and those opposed to any military action by the US.
The crucial difference is that, while the opponents of war might have disagreed violently about their reasons for their position, these disagreements made no fundamental difference to the policy that they supported. In debates over wars of choice, peace is the status quo, and is a fairly unambiguous concept. (Perhaps not totally unambiguous – if the inspections had been allowed to continue and nothing had been found, differences would no doubt have emerged about what to do next, but peace leaves options like this open whereas war forecloses them).
By contrast, the supporters of the war were giving their support to very different kinds of war and assuming that their own preferred version would be the one that took place. But if they were honest with themselves (as Derbyshire has been, at least retrospectively) they should have looked at their allies and realised that there was no warrant for this assumption. Instead, they committed themselves to war with a whole series of implicit conditions. Many of them, in recanting, have blamed the Bush Administration for not delivering the kind of war they supported, or for mishandling the war in various ways that reflect entirely different assumptions and objectives. But, they had no reason to expect anything different.
The same asymmetry arises in predictions about the war. Opponents of the war variously predicted a military defeat for the US, a long and costly occupation, tens of thousands of civilian casualties, millions of refugees, the emergence of a new dictatorship, civil war on religious and ethnic lines, a stimulus to terrorism and so on. Supporters of the war derided all of these predictions and projected a variety of rosy scenarios including a quick military victory, roses and sweets showered on the liberating troops, and so on. Apart from the initial victory, not many of the optimistic predictions have panned out, but, as war supporters have pointed out, plenty of the anti-war predictions have failed too.
But this is the wrong test, and presumes a symmetry that isn’t there. War is doing harm, and only under very special conditions can it produce enough good to outweigh this. This is the point of what used to called the Powell doctrine which allowed for discretionary use of force only with near certainty of success at low cost, clear and easily achieved objectives and a well-defined exit strategy.
Looking at the list of antiwar predictions, the realisation of any one of them would be enough to make war the wrong choice. As it is, several of them have been validated, and even some of those that seemed falsified, like the millions of refugees are now coming to pass.
Whatever the intentions of those who start them, most wars end up ruinous to both sides and even more to the people and land being fought over. The Iraq war has been no exception. There are occasions when there is no alternative, but we should be slow to go to war and quick to seek peace.
fn1. My only doubt on this concerns the reliability of polygraphs, but they serve well enough as a rhetorical device
John Quiggin 
I generally supported the action against Iraq and had been for enforcement of the UNSC resolutions long before we got to 1441. I think Bill Clinton, who I liked and admired and voted for, ignored the UN when it was convenient (by not taking action in Iraq and by taking it in Kosovo). He should not have allowed Iraq to fester for so long.
September 11 influenced my thinking on Iraq only to the extent that 9/11 did reduce the acceptability of the risk of continuing to do nothing in an area of the world we’d all ignored as despots and dictators took it back to the stone age. I’m just as likely as the next guy to want to do nothing for as long as possible. It’s so much easier to do nothing, in the short term at least. But that only makes the problem bigger. I didn’t think the invasion would be unilateral and it wasn’t. I knew there would be large scale bombing of Iraq but I honestly did not believe that Iraq would fall militarily so quickly. I’m for pre-emption on the WMD, so it never bothered me that WMD were not found after the invasion. I would still like to know what Saddam did with the WMD. We likely never will know.
I don’t care if Iraq ever supports Israel, as long as it doesn’t bother it. That’s pretty much my position on any country vis a vis Israel (or any other democracy). I assumed there’d be a provisional government until an Iraqi government could be elected. I’m quite content to leave the government of Iraq up to the Iraqi people. People free to choose their own government don’t choose stone age islamism.
If the Iraqi government wants permanent US bases, that’s ok with me, although I do think US bases can be used as a crutch for a nation to lean on and thereby not only stop being responsible for their own defense but not KNOW that they’ve stopped being responsible for it.
I agree wholeheartedly that we should be slow to go to war. But once we have, victory is the only acceptable option. I don’t believe in peace-seeking with people like Saddam.
Milano: Hear Hear!
I opposed the War. I did not believe that the WMD would be found and I saw no link between 911 and Iraq.
However I figured in some ways that a quick war might be better than endless sanctions (which I didn’t support). And once it was clear that the US was determined I had mixed feelings about Australia holding back (given that US failure was not a pretty option).
I think the US Congress was gutless in its deference to the president and his administration. Those in Congress that now try and take an anti-war high moral ground and yet voted in support of the invasion have a lot of answering to do (in my view).
I think the idea of imposing democracy from afar was saddly misguided (like most big government initiatives) however given the amount of blood and treasure that has been sunk into this venture I still wish for a successful outcome in Iraq.
Milano said:
On that basis you could invade most of the world, to prevent them from developing any. Doesn’t sound like a particularly good use of resources. I suspect, however, that your next sentence contains your justification:
That implies that he had any. Are you referring to the stuff the US sold him in the 80’s, whose existence (then) is fairly well agreed, or are you referring to the “WMD related programs” which failed to materialize? Do people still believe this stuff?
Um, doesn’t look like it: http://news.google.com/news?q=Talabani+US+withdrawal
This is confusing. We were at peace with Saddam before the war (in a strict military sense anyway). Peace did not need to be sought. And once we started, Saddam was gone in the blink of an eye, so there was no opportunity to seek peace with him afterwards. Do you really mean that, contrary to your previous statement, we shouldn’t be slow to go to war with people like Saddam?
milano803 repeats every bloody fallacy that was put forward before the war. He has clearly learned nothing and forgotten nothing.
I can forgive those who were sucked in by lies, patriotism and an uncritical media before the war, but anybody who still thinks it was either moral or wise is just not worth responding to. but I will anyway.
Clearly, it does not matter that Saddam was a deadly opponent of al-Quaeda who stood to gain absolutely nothing by 9/11 and had no involvment at all in it, nor that he happened to be telling the truth (admittedly a change for him) when he said he’d got rid of them in 1995, nor that the claims of continuing mass murder had no backing at all (we’re not talking about what he did in 1992, folks, but about what he was doing in 2002), nor that his overthrow was only ever going to be to the advantage of the mullahs, nor that there was zero prospect of a propsperous democrcy emerging from all this (which was just as well because judging by their behaviour rahter than their rhetoric Cheney et al were merely after the permanent bases). No, milano is still a true believer.
John Q patiently takes the time to point out ever so gently the asymmetry of the war and no-war options. I wish I had the coolness of head to politely disagree with the war supporters. But I do not. And if they could see the images of dismembered children that they show on al Jazeera but never on Foxtel, then they might begin to realise what a moral black hole they live in.
Our friend Milan “agrees wholeheartedly that we should be slow to go to war.” Yet he is for pre-emption on WMD. For any state? If not, which states qualify as responsible enough to have them? Israel has them but they are the good guys, cause they are a democracy. Kind of. He does not seem worried that WMD never turned up so they don’t need to actually exist. There just needs to be a risk they exist. On this basis, can someone explain to me why I should not just murder the first Muslim that I see? He could be carrying a weapon and he probably hates me as an infidel.
The only WMD used in the US is anthrax – made in the US and delivered by a US citizen. If it had been an Arab that would have been further justification for war. Thirty thousand of Milan’s fellow citizens are murdered by their fellow citizens each year. Where is the threat? Look at the bloke on the bus next to you.
Do Americans have any idea how arrogant they sound? Even their allies in English speaking liberal democracies sometimes, in secret moments. feel like cheering for the terrorists. So just imagine how the Arabs feel. All America’s own fault really. And ours for getting caught up in it.
Terje, I don’t how the idea that action may not be taken against anyone unless they are linked definitively to 9/11 entered the equation but I think it’s a misguided notion.
There’s an odd idea that Congress is somehow supposed to oversee the executive’s every action. But that’s not how the Constitution reads. It is the executive that conducts foreign policy, including military action. Congress cannot by definition “defer” to the executive on foreign policy. And I can’t see how having Saddam still in power, which is what the anti-war crowd would have, if only through inaction, is the moral high ground. I strongly believe in the right of every person to determine their own path and the best way so far the accomplish that politically is through democracy.
I agree with you that big government initiatives are usually disastrous (which is why I’m not for nationalized health insurance), but in the realm of foreign policy and military matters I can’t see any other actor than the government that would be a reasonable actor. Democracy cannot be “imposed”; all you can do is clear the way for it. That’s been accomplished. I think you’d agree with me that now it’s up to the Iraqis themselves to make of it what they will.
“On that basis you could invade most of the world, to prevent them from developing any. ”
Most of the world doesn’t even have enough food, so I doubt they’re working on WMD. That said, I think it’s ok for some nations to have WMD and it’s not OK for others. I wouldn’t care if Canada had them, for example. Should the UN have insisted that Iraq account for the WMD it said it destroyed? Maybe not, if the goal was simple removal from Kuwait. Should any of us have let it go 12 years, long after it was clear that Saddam had no intent to comply? no, I don’t think so.
“Um, doesn’t look like it”
The Iraqi government has not even considered the matter of US bases yet. I’d rather we didn’t have any bases for the reason I indicate above, but if the Iraqi government does want them, that would be OK with me, particularly for some time period in the infancy of the democracy. I’d suggest we move the troops we have in Europe and Japan to such bases, with a goal of avoiding the kind of dependency we created in Europe.
“We were at peace with Saddam before the war”
We had a ceasefire with Iraq.
“Do you really mean that, contrary to your previous statement, we shouldn’t be slow to go to war with people like Saddam? ”
We were slow to go back to war with Saddam, we waited 12 years. As I said above, I think Bill Clinton should have enforced the resolutions long before GWB did.
In some respects, I understand John Derbyshire’s point. Having decided to remove Saddam, it would have been better for us had we gone in with the force he suggests, I’d guess we would have lost fewer American lives. I do think a permanent ceasefire solves nothing, look at North Korea, but it’s easier and that has it’s attractions.
Brilliant article John,
Very well written – though i think there is a grammar mistake at the end:
“This is the point of what used to called the Powell doctrine which allowed for…”
should be
“This is the point of what used to be called the Powell doctrine which allowed for “
Speaking of that other Axis of Evil http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19511204-401,00.html?from=rss
and of course we still have Iranian intentions. Presumably John Quiggin is perfectly comfortable with these developments as he would have been with failing Iraqi sanctions and Saddam resuming his nuclear and biological programs. Of course under a nuclear umbrella Saddam would no longer feel threatened by the dangerous Kuwaits of his world to order a preemptive strike like he did. Ditto Iran in a nuclear future, who of course need to wipe Israel off the map to feel safe in their region.
How ethically comfortable it must be to take the isolationist stance of a comfy chair and a good book and push these people back across their borders to sort themselves out in their own good time. You know, the Darfurs, Zimbabwes, Iraqs, NKs, Cubas, etc. For isn’t that what the Quigginses of this world are recommending? Or are they seriously suggesting that we make things easy for the Milosevics, Mugabes, Saddams, Castros, Kim Jong Ils, etc of this world by complicitly accepting all those they want to ethnically, theocratically or ideologically cleanse? There is something to be said for not getting involved in other peoples’ troubles with guns, but there’s also something to be said against the smugness of isolationism also. What’s the matter John? Affirmative action on the nose a little of late? With Saddam in charge at least John didn’t have to put up with any uncomfortable statistics or pictures of Iraqis dying and as a bonus the trains run on time.
CL’s final paragraph reveals rather a lot about the voices calling CL from within;
Cheering for terrorists?
It’s all america’s fault?
Suggesting (seriously) that a crime committed by a individual leads inexorably to a justifiable case for war against the country in which that individual holds citizenship?
“We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.” (Churchill, speech in H. of C. June 1940)
Can you blame them?
Correct Gordon, evil should be fought tooth & nail at any time. Though I do point out that the scuffle you refer to occurred more than 65 years ago.
John, among the five disparate reasons you impute to the minds of Iraq-war supporters, oil (affordable, secure oil) is not among them – surprisingly so, IMO.
For the record, I was a tentative supporter of the war at the start, for this very reason. Personally, I’m a bicycle-riding inner-city type, whose life would hardly be affected if petrol were $10/litre, but I’m acutely aware that this would not be true for the vast majority.
Obviously, the war has been a complete failure in setting up Iraq as a sustainable replacement nation-bowser, in lieu of Saudi Arabia (a country that is surely beyond democratisation/help, in 2003 and now). The West’s ongoing reliance on Saudi oil – via a growing co-dependant relationship based on mutual hatred and exploitation – may yet prove to be the single most catastrophic outcome of the Iraq war’s failure, I fear.
There’s an odd idea that Congress is somehow supposed to oversee the executive’s every action. But that’s not how the Constitution reads. It is the executive that conducts foreign policy, including military action.
um. ever heard of congressional oversight? it’s what american civic textbooks call the “odd idea that Congress is somehow supposed to oversee the executive’s every action”. regarding the executive’s purported power to conduct foreign policy, the constitution, amongst other things, explicitly prevents the president from making treaties without the concurrence of 2/3 of the senate (art 2, section 2), and explicitly vests in congress the power to declare war and to regulate international commerce (art 1, section 8).
that smiley face should be “8” followed by “)”.
I agree it would be a misguided notion if that was the notion that I was implying. However I wasn’t. JQ had infered that many pro-war arguments were based on the idea that Iraq was linked to 911 (not all but many). I was merely stating that I never noted any credible evidence of a linkage between Iraq and 911. That is not (as you imply) the same as saying that any country not involved in 911 should never ever be invaded.
I think it is reasonable to argue that 911 changed the calculus that the USA applied to Iraq and other nations, even though those nations were not directly involved. 911 taught the USA that is was more vulnerable than perhaps it realised. Discovering that you are vulnerable will typically make you respond to potential or perceived threats more harshly. So it is fair enough to say that 911 changed the USA and that changed the relationship with Iraq. Is that your position?
As for your comments on congress I think Snuh covers them above sufficiently. So you can respond to his/her comments.
Regards,
Terje.
“um. ever heard of congressional oversight? it’s what american civic textbooks call the “odd idea that Congress is somehow supposed to oversee the executive’s every actionâ€?. ”
Not really. Congress has oversight through power of the purse, control of the money. But Congress does not have oversight over the conduct of foreign policy, that is solely the responsibility of the executive.
Terje, I don’t recall any specific mention of a connection between 9/11 and Iraq in any of the UNSC resolutions, but it’s possible that I simply missed it.
“Discovering that you are vulnerable will typically make you respond to potential or perceived threats more harshly.
or, as in this case, it may make you realize that you should have done something that you failed to do quite a long time ago. That you cannot just ignore situations like Iraq for 12 years. I don’t think it made us act more harshly but it did make us at last act.
“So it is fair enough to say that 911 changed the USA and that changed the relationship with Iraq. Is that your position?”
9/11 did indeed change the US, but as far as the relationship with Iraq it simply made us do what should have been done the first, or possibly second time Iraq failed to comply with resolutions. Anyone want to put any money on whether Iran gets 17 chances?
Milano, Osama bin Laden and his gang were based in Afghanistan and there was ample justification for going after them in that country and most of the world recognised this. From all accounts I have seen bin Laden and Saddam loathed each other.
Attacking Iraq has been likened to President Roosevelt responding to Pearl Harbour by invading Mexico.
Now I know most Americans are geographically challenged but there is a large amount of territory (known as Iran) between Afghanistan and Iraq.
Oh… and where are the troops going to come from for your apparently favoured operation in Iran?
Patriots! To arms! Follow milano803.
Perhaps not all baddys have to be mates with each other. Saddam & Osama can loathe each other & still do bad stuff to the USA.
It seems that concept is too much of a mental leap for quite a few people.
Mission accomplished fairly soon for some at least. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19524618-401,00.html
I wonder when the same call will be made in Afghanistan.
Bemused, since you brought it up, there is a WWII comparison to be made here. It’s that attacking Iraq was similar to the US attack on Germany after Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor changed the acceptability of risk with Germany the same way 9/11 changed the acceptability of risk with Iraq. And like Iraq, the US had been ignoring the building problems with Germany, we simply didn’t see it as our fight and hoped maybe it would go away. And it never does.
I know the standard response is that Germany declared war on the US, but Germany was quite busy in Europe. It would have taken it a very long time before it got around to doing anything about the US. The German declaration of war with the US was an attempt to draw the US into a war it really did not want to be part of, in the same way that AQ hoped (if the recently captured documents after the zarqawi killing are authentic) that the US could be drawn into war with Iran to weaken it in Iraq. Unfortunately for Germany, the US was capable of military action on both sides of the globe even back then. In the long view, obviously taking action against Germany was the right thing to do even if the US wasn’t in imminent danger.
Your comments about Iran must be misdirected.
Sorry, this sentence should read: And like THE SITUATION WITH Iraq, the US had been ignoring the building problems with Germany, we simply didn’t see it as our fight and hoped maybe it would go away. And it never does.
“But Congress does not have oversight over the conduct of foreign policy, that is solely the responsibility of the executive.”
Oy vey. No wonder the federal government doesn’t follow the Constitution. FYI, from Article I, Section 8 (the Powers of Congress):
“To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”
The idea that one person should have the power to decide whether or not the U.S. government goes to war is dangerous and foolish. (The next thing you know, we’ll have Presidents behaving like international terrorists, blowing up privately owned pharmaceutical factories…)
If Franklin Roosevelt (hardly a man who respected and followed the Constitution!) at least had the decency to ask for a Congressional declaration of war in WWII, what reason did G.W. Bush have (other than complete ignorance and disdain for the Constitution) not to get a Congressional declaration of war against Saddam Hussein’s government in 2003?
“Clearly, it does not matter that Saddam was a deadly opponent of al-Quaeda who stood to gain absolutely nothing by 9/11…”
Hmmm…please label each of these assertions as “true” or “false”:
1) The men involved in the 1993 WTC bombing were Muslim fanatics.
2) At least some of the men involved in the 1993 WTC bombing had ties to Al Quaeda (strong enough ties that Wikipedia announces that, “He was(sic) a member of Al Qaida”).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramzi_Yousef
3) Saddam Hussein sheltered at least one of those Muslim fanatics, Abdul Rahman Yasin, as late as the summer of 2002. That is, even AFTER the 9/11/01 attack on the WTC, Saddam Hussein was still sheltering a perpetrator of the 1993 WTC attack!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/31/60minutes/main510795.shtml
If you accept all three assertions as “true,” why do you think Saddam Hussein was sheltering a 1993 WTC terrorist, even AFTER 9/11/01? If he was such a “deadly opponent of al-Quaeda,” why didn’t Saddam turn over Abdul Rahman Yasin, especially AFTER 9/11/01? And especially after Abdul Rahman Yasin ADMITTED he was a 1993 WTC attack participant, on “60 Minutes”?
“John Q patiently takes the time to point out ever so gently the asymmetry of the war and no-war options. I wish I had the coolness of head to politely disagree with the war supporters. But I do not. And if they could see the images of dismembered children that they show on al Jazeera but never on Foxtel, then they might begin to realise what a moral black hole they live in.”
Ever seen photos of dismembered Japanese or German children in WWII? Does that put supporters of the war against the Nazis and military empire of Japan in a “moral black hole?”
Also…does al Jazeera ever show the bodies of the women and children with bullets in the back of their skulls, executed by Saddam Hussein’s regime, bulldozed into mass graves in Iraq?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/13/iraq.graves/
“The first trench contains the remains of women and children, and the second contains the remains of men only. More than 100 bodies have been found from the first location and a similar number from the other.”
“Many of the victims wore multiple layers of clothing and carried small personal items like jewelry and medication. One child was found with a ball in his hand.”
“The women — four or five of whom were pregnant — and children appear to have been killed with a single small-caliber gunshot to the head.”
“The idea that one person should have the power to decide whether or not the U.S. government goes to war is dangerous and foolish. ”
No one has said that any one person has the power to decide to go to war. What I said is that it is the executive’s prerogative to direct foreign policy. And it is. Somewhere along the way, people got confused about what the executive’s role is. And some people are uncomfortable with the idea of an executive with the power that is invested in the US executive branch. But it is by design and it is constitutional. And it is a hugely powerful position, no doubt about that. The idea that the executive branch is merely the functionary to carry out Congressional bidding is simply wrong. Foreign policy is set and carried out by the executive branch.
“what reason did G.W. Bush have (other than complete ignorance and disdain for the Constitution) not to get a Congressional declaration of war against Saddam Hussein’s government in 2003?”
See this link for an explanation of the difference between a formal declaration of war and a military engagement authorized by Congress. The action in 2003 is an example of the latter, not the former.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States
But Congress does not have oversight over the conduct of foreign policy, that is solely the responsibility of the executive.
no doubt the senate foreign relations committee and the house committee on international relations will be surprised to hear this.
also, according to you, the concentration of all foreign and war-related powers in the executive is “by design and it is constitutional”, but oddly you seem unable to cite any part of the constitution to support your argument. how strange.
The idea that the executive branch is merely the functionary to carry out Congressional bidding is simply wrong.
this “simply wrong” idea is often referred to in civics textbooks as the “separation of powers”. you might say congress makes laws, and the executive’s job is to implement these laws.
“no doubt the senate foreign relations committee and the house committee on international relations will be surprised to hear this.”
that they don’t supervise the executive office? No, I think they know that. The term “committee” would be the clue here.
“this “simply wrongâ€? idea is often referred to in civics textbooks as the “separation of powersâ€?. ”
no, the separation of powers does not refer to the misgiuded notion that the executive is under the supervision of the legislative.
“you might say congress makes laws, and the executive’s job is to implement these laws.”
it’s a bit more complicated than that. For example, the executive branch must sign bills passed by congress into law. It’s actually quite a neat system and who could imagine the founding fathers could have foreseen so many issues to come, and design such a relatively simple system, eh?
“this “simply wrongâ€? idea is often referred to in civics textbooks as the “separation of powersâ€?. ”
It just occurred to me that you likely meant “checks and balances” rather than separation of powers here. But even checks and balances does not refer to the misguided notion that the executive is some sort of managerial position designed to carry out the bidding of the legislative.
“No one has said that any one person has the power to decide to go to war. ”
Yeah, right. The simple fact is that modern presidents routinely go to war without obtaining Congressional declarations of war, as required by the Constitution (e.g. Bill Clinton in Yugoslavia and Bosnia).
“See this link for an explanation of the difference between a formal declaration of war and a military engagement authorized by Congress. The action in 2003 is an example of the latter, not the former.”
Yes, the Wikipedia link describes situations where presidents and congresses follow the Constitution, and where they do not. The “action” in 2003 is an example of the latter.
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul50.html
And why do presidents and congresses routinely ignore the Constitution? Because The People never demand that they follow the Constitution. (Don’t get me wrong…the lack of caring that the federal government follows the Constitution is solidly supported across virtually the entire political spectrum. Unfortunately.)
I wrote, “…(e.g. Bill Clinton in Yugoslavia and Bosnia).”
I meant Yugoslavia and Somalia. Or Haiti. Or whatever. In all the (many) wars he waged, he never bothered once to obtain a Congressional declaration of war, as required by the Constitution.
I don’t believe that you understood the link. Not every action, not even every military action, is war.
milano803,
While I agree that the action in Iraq was justified, I believe that a formal declaration of war should have been made. Military action directed to changing a government and incorporating a full scale invasion would fit most definitions of war. Bush himself called the attack on the WTC as war and I think that the action taken in Iraq is on a more significant scale.
Presidents do not like having to go to Congress to get the declarations: this is why they have not been used recently.
Bush actually DID go to Congress for authorization, Andrew. See the link above.
IMO, a formal declaration of war was not necessary or correct in Iraq’s case as the action wasn’t against the Iraqi people, it was against a specific individual. I make a distinction between a leader freely chosen and accepted by the people of any country and one who gets into power or remains in power through force. To me, a declaration against a people is quite different. The US had and has no quibble with the Iraqi people, as the US did for example with the nazis.
The attack on the WTC, I assume you mean the 9/11 attack, wasn’t an attack by a country, so who do you declare war against, Al Qaeda? The Taliban? Those aren’t countries.
Andrew, forgot one thing. The action against Iraq in 1991, was based upon UNSC resolution and was not a war between the US and Iraq. The US participated in military operations against Iraq, Desert Storm, along with many other countries, none of whom declared war against Iraq from any of them, nor should there have been. Operation Desert Storm was fought to an armistice or ceasefire, negotiated by the UN in April 1991. The action in 2003 was a resumption of military action based on Iraq’s failure to comply with the UN negotiated armistice. A declaration of war by the US against Iraq in 2003 would have been inappropriate. Your point, logically followed, would have required that every country in the 2003 coalition declare war against Iraq even though we were in an armistice to begin with. Doesn’t make sense.
milano,
I know he got authorisation – but not the formal declaration.
By your logic WWII would not have needed a declaration of war; nor would almost any other war in history. Only one war has ever been fought between democracies with leaders freely elected and even there the electoral process was doubtful (Chile vs. Peru early last century from memory).
Sorry, that logic does not fly.
For the reason given above (we were in a ceasefire in 2003) a formal declaration of war would have been inappropriate. Remember, 2003 was a resumption of action begun in 1991, based on UN resolution.
“By your logic WWII would not have needed a declaration of war”
No, specifically the opposite, as I indicated above. WWII was very much a war between countries, not simply removal of a despot.
Did you never wonder, Andrew why no other country participating in either the 1991 action or the resumption in 2003 declared war against Iraq either?
“the misguided notion that the executive is some sort of managerial position”
the other common meaning of the word “executive” is a clue. also, if congress “does not have oversight over the conduct of foreign policy”, perhaps you will explain why the house committee on international relations has a subcommittee called “subcommittee on oversight and investigations”.
ah, a subcommitee of a committee, yes, that sounds like oversight to me. When can we expect them to actually oversee anything even vaguely related to foreign policy? Or is that the responsibility of the sub-sub commitee on oversight?
still waiting for a citation of a section [any section] of the US constitution which supports the theories of presidential power you say are “by design” and “constitutional”.
“the other common meaning of the word “executiveâ€? is a clue.”
executives set policy
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2006/06/19/national/w121437D84.DTL&type=printable
“Bush Gives Iran an Ultimatum on Uranium”
wonder if the subcommitee on oversight authorized this?
do you even know the meaning of the word “oversight”?
http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2006/06/19/ap2824918.html
“Rice Warns N. Korea Against Missile Test”
does the subcommittee know?
A few simple questions for milano803:
1. What nationalities were the hijackers in 9/11? Were there any Iraqis?
2. Given that most were Saudis and Saudi Arabia is the source of Wahabism that promotes extremist ideas such as bin Ladens, would it not have been a more deserving target than Iraq?
3. Given that the Taliban was largely sponsored by the state security service of Pakistan, would it not have been a good idea to take out the Pakistan regime too?
milano and his ilk will no doubt infer from this that I support Saddam Hussein. I don’t and never have, unlike the US administration that sponsored and armed him in the 1980s. They are all mired in their own contradictions.
There are many totally abhorent regimes in the world would milano803 suggest a war on all of them? Most will eventually fall or modify their behaviour without the necessity for war. External diplomatic, economic and other pressure can assist this process at far lower cost in lives and dollars than the Texas gunslinger approach to foreign policy.
I am not generally a fan of Robert Heinlein’s politics, but one line in Stranger in a Strange Land had a significant impact on me, it runs something like “the difference between bad and worse is greater than the difference between good and bad”.
It’s a lesson all sides of politics would do well to learn. To oppose the Iraq invasion was not to say Saddam Hussein was good. He wasn’t. However, on virtually every measurable test the current situation is worse – as it was always likely to be. Some people simply can’t seem to get their heads around the fact that the difference between 10,000 innocent deaths a year and 50,000 is pretty substantial, and a good reason to avoid the latter.
“The US had and has no quibble with the Iraqi people, as the US did for example with the nazis.
The attack on the WTC, I assume you mean the 9/11 attack, wasn’t an attack by a country, so who do you declare war against, Al Qaeda? The Taliban? Those aren’t countries.”
I just can’t get over the confused nonsense emanating from milano803.
The nazis were not a people, they were a political party and movement following a particularly odious ideology. Unfortunately they gained control of a nation state and the declaration of war was not on the nazis but Germany.
Yes, 9/11 was not an attack by a country, it was an attack by organisations whose conduct had long before made them criminal. US law enforcement authorities should have demanded that the leadership of Al Quaida be handed over by the Taliban for trial as criminals. Why dignify criminals by according them the status of opponents in a war?
It is highly improbable that the Taliban would have complied and there you would have had a government of a nation (like the nazis governed Germany) harbouring a criminal organisation suspected of carrying out mass murder and planning more. Ample cause then for enforcement by military means if necessary.
The strategic brilliance of the texas gunslinger and his cabal has now reduced Iraq to chaos where terrorism flourishes and the Iraqi people the US ‘had no quibble with’ pay an enormous price.
StephenL gets it right.