Letter to Ben in Iraq

Dear Son,

Ben, you asked me if the United States had declared war. I told you “Yes, but that’s not the whole story.” It would have taken too long to try to answer your question in detail on the telephone – so I put this together and here is the rest of the story. After reading it, feel free to circulate it among your brothers. This is going to be fun reading, and long I’m afraid, but at least you will be rewarded with some humor at the end. It should end any disagreements. Your mother’s eyes glassed over before she finished reading it, so hang in there. Try to get to the end because the conclusions are important.

Ben, the answer to your question is: Congress has not formally declared War on Afghanistan or Iraq, but Congress did vote to give the President the broad authorization to use all necessary force to protect the United States of America from terrorism and enforce the United Nation's resolutions pertaining to Iraq. What is the difference and how does this work?

In 1973, following the withdrawal of most American troops from the Vietnam War, a debate emerged about how much power the President should have in the future to deploy troops without a formal “declaration of war.” A compromise in the debate was reached in Congress in what was called the “War Powers Resolution.” This act defined how many soldiers could be deployed by the President of the United States in a limited engagement and for how long. It also required formal reports by the President to Congress regarding the status of such deployments, and limited the total amount of time that American forces could be deployed without a formal declaration of war.

Although the constitutionality of the War Powers Act has never been tested in the courts, its provisions have been followed during the Grenada Conflict (Reagan 40), the Panamanian Conflict (Reagan 40), the Somalia Conflict (Clinton 42), the Gulf War (Bush 41), and the Iraq War (Bush 43). In each case, the sitting President asserted the constitutional authority to commit troops without the necessity of Congressional approval, but in each case the President received Congressional authorization that satisfied the provisions of the War Powers Act.

The "Iraq Resolution" and "Iraq War Resolution" are popular names for the AUMF, The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502), which was a law passed by the United States Congress authorizing what soon became known as the Iraq War. The authorization was sought by President George W. Bush and introduced by House of Representatives leadership as House Joint Resolution 114. It passed the House of Representatives on October 10 by a vote of 296-133 and by the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.

The resolution cited many factors to justify military action:
• Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors
• Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"
• Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"
• Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"
• Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
• Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq"
• Iraq's "continuing to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations
• Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States
• The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them
• The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism

The Resolution required diplomatic efforts at the UN Security Council to "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions." It authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq." Before being permitted to use force, the President was to determine that further diplomatic efforts alone would not satisfactorily protect the United States or ensure Iraq's compliance with United Nation’s Security Council resolutions.

Members of the Senate who voted against the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iraq Resolution of 2002:
• Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
• Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
• Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
• Robert Byrd (D-WV)
• Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
• Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
• Kent Conrad (D-ND)
• Mark Dayton (D-MN)
• Dick Durbin (D-IL)
• Russ Feingold (D-WI)
• Bob Graham (D-FL)
• Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
• Jim Jeffords (I-VT)
• Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
• Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
• Carl Levin (D-MI)
• Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
• Patty Murray (D-WA)
• Jack Reed (D-RI)
• Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
• Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
• Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
• Ron Wyden (D-OR)

DECLARATION OF WAR: A declaration of war is a FORMAL declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more other nations.

For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says “Congress shall have the power to ... declare War," however, neither that passage nor any other passage provides a specific format that legislative text must have in order to be considered a "Declaration of War.” Nowhere in the Constitution will you find the phrase, “Declaration of War.” Many have postulated that a "Declaration(s) of War" must at a minimum contain either in the text or in the title the phrase “Declaration of War.” As you would expect, many also oppose that reasoning. The postulate has not been tested in the courts. So, for our purposes the term "formal Declaration of War" is any Congressional legislation that specifically uses the phrase "Declaration of War" in the title or text. That did not occur either in Afghanistan or in Iraq.

After World War II, Congress voluntarily chose to limit its own use of the power to declare war by authorizing force in the resolution of conflicts of national interest but intentionally choosing not to formally declare a war. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (Public Law 93-148) limits the power of the President to wage even a limited war without the approval of the Congress. The United States has formally declared war against foreign nations eleven separate times, the last in 1942 in conjunction with World War II.

Formal Declarations of War

The list below gives the eleven separate times that the United States has formally declared war against foreign nations. The only country against which the United States has declared war more than once is Germany. The United States has declared war against Germany twice (though a case could be made for Hungary as a successor state to Austria-Hungary). Each time the declaration of war was requested by the President either in writing or in person appearing before a joint session of Congress.

War of 1812
Opponent - United Kingdom
Declaration date - Jun. 18, 1812
Senate vote - 19 to 13
House vote - 79 to 49
President - Madison
Peace Treaty - Treaty of Ghent (Dec. 24, 1814)

Mexican-American War
Opponent - Mexico
Declaration date - May 11, 1846
Senate vote - 40 to 2
House vote - 174 to14
President - Polk
Peace Treaty - Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (February 2, 1848)

Spanish-American War
Opponent - Spain
Declaration date - Apr. 24, 1898
Senate vote - 42 to 35
House vote - 310 to 6
President - McKinley
Peace Treaty - Treaty of Paris (Dec.10, 1898)

World War I
Opponent - Germany
Declaration date - Apr. 4 and Apr. 6, 1917
Senate vote - 82 to 6
House vote - 373 to 50
President - Wilson
Peace Treaty - Treaty of Berlin (Aug. 25, 1921)

World War I
Opponent - Austria-Hungary
Declaration date - Dec. 7, 1917
Senate vote - 74 to 0
House vote - 365 to 1
President - Wilson
Peace Treaty - Treaty of Trianon (in part)

World War II
Opponent - Japan
Declaration date - Dec. 8, 1941
Senate vote - 82 to 0
House vote - 388 to 1
Presidents - F. D. Roosevelt and Truman
Peace Treaty - San Francisco Peace Treaty (Sep. 8, 1951)

World War II
Opponent - Germany
Declaration date - Dec. 11, 1941
Senate vote - 88 to 0
House vote - 393 to 0
President - F.D. Roosevelt and Truman
Peace Treaty - Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany & Treaty of Vienna with Austria

World War II
Opponent - Italy
Declaration date - Dec. 11, 1941
Senate vote - 90 to 0
House vote - 399 to 0
President - F.D. Roosevelt and Truman
Peace Treaty - Paris Peace Treaty (Feb. 10, 1947)

World War II
Opponent - Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania
Declaration date - Jun. 5, 1942
Senate vote - 73 to 0
House vote - 357, 360 and 361 to 0 respectively
Presidents - F.D. Roosevelt and Truman
Peace Treaty - Paris Peace Treaty (Feb. 10, 1947)

Other Military Engagements Authorized by Congress

Many times, the United States has engaged in extended military engagements that, while not formally declared wars, were explicitly authorized by Congress.

Quasi-War
Opponent(s) - France
Initial authorization - 1798
President - John Adams
Conclusion - Convention of 1800 (Treaty of Mortefontaine)

First Barbary War
Opponent - Barbary States
Initial authorization - 1801
President - Jefferson

Second Barbary War
Opponent - Barbary States
Initial authorization - 1815
President - Madison

Raid of Slave Traffic
Opponent - Africa
Initial authorization - 1820

Redress for attack on U.S. Navy vessel
Opponent - Paraguay
Initial authorization - 1859
President - Buchanan

Intervention during the Russian Civil War
Opponent - Bolshevist Russia
Initial authorization - 1918
President - Wilson

Protection of Lebanon
Opponent - Rebels
Initial authorization - 1958
President - Eisenhower

Vietnam War
Opponent - National Liberation Front, later Democratic Republic of Vietnam
Initial authorization - Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Aug. 7, 1964
Senate vote - 88 to 2
House vote - 416 to 0
Presidents - Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon
Peace Treaty - Peace agreement signed in Paris, January 1973

Multinational Force in Lebanon
Opponent - Shia and Druze Islamic militias; Syria
Initial authorization - Sep. 29, 1983
Senate vote - 54 to 46
House vote - 253 to 156
President - Reagan
Peace Treaty - none (Force withdrew in 1984)

Invasion of Panama, also known as Operation Just Cause
Opponent - Panama Defense Force
Initial authorization - Dec. 20, 1989
President - George H.W. Bush
Peace Treaty - none, Manuel Noriega deposed

Persian Gulf War, also known as Operation Desert Storm
Opponent - Iraq
Initial authorization - Jan. 12, 1991
Senate vote - 52 to 47
House vote - 250 to 183
President - George H.W. Bush (41)
Peace Treaty - The United Nations Security Council drew up terms for the cease-fire, April 3, 1991

2001 war in Afghanistan, also known as Operation Enduring Freedom
Opponent - Taliban government of Afghanistan and al-Qaida
Initial authorization - S.J. Res. 23 on Sep. 18, 2001
Senate vote - 98 to 0
House vote - 420 to 1
President - George W. Bush (43)
Peace Treaty - Ongoing

Iraq War, also known as Operation Iraqi Freedom
Opponent - Iraq
Initial authorization - H.J. Res. 114 on Oct. 16, 2002
Senate vote - 77 to 23
House vote - 296 to 133
President - George W. Bush (43)
Peace Treaty - Ongoing

What about the Korean War? The Korean War was not a war authorized by the U.S. Congress. President Harry S. Truman cited authority under United Nations resolutions. Major U.S. Military involvement began with Task Force Smith on July 5th, 1950. A cease fire agreement was signed on July 27, 1953; however no formal treaty has been signed to this date. There are many other undeclared "wars" missing from this list. For example, the United States fought in Korea in 1870 and in Nicaragua in 1927. If anybody still cares, the United States’ longest war was fought between approximately 1840 and 1886 against the Apache Nation. During that entire 46-year period, there were never more than 90 days of "peace."

Controversy regarding U.S. declarations of war

There are people who philosophically oppose waging any war; and those who oppose a war without a declaration of war in strict compliance with the U.S. Constitution; and there are still others who take the view that a formal declaration of war is not necessary to defend or avenge American lives, property damage or interests. The latter group argues that since the Constitution expressly prohibits individual American states from engaging in war without the consent of Congress, unless they are actually invaded or in imminent danger, which if a similar prohibition had been intended for the President, then such words would have also been written to affect it. They also point to the military connotations of the phrases engaging in war (used in the aforesaid prohibition) and levying war (used in the definition of treason) as opposed to the diplomatic connotations of the phrase declare war. Further historical arguments point to the decisions to not issue a formal declaration of war preceding either the Civil War or the Revolutionary War, the latter decision being made by a Continental Congress comprising a number of those who went on to write the Constitution.

Not only is the term “Declaration of War," not addressed in the U.S. Constitution, the Constitution does it define the form that any such declarations will take. Therefore, many have argued congressionally-passed authorizations to use military force are constructively “Declarations of War.” However, it is possible that had the administration asked Congress for a Declaration of War against the nation of Iraq, instead of the AUMF for Iraq’s ongoing refusal to comply with numerous United Nation’s Resolutions, Congress might have said “No” for any number of reasons. Secondly, the use of the AUMF may have been Congress’ solution to finding a way to circumvent a valid constitutional process in which they could not prevail (not enough votes) without some sort of compromise shell game for consumption by the public and the media. How else could the United States find itself in a protracted conflict such as Vietnam? Very likely it would not have been possible to convince the Congress and the nation to formally declare war either on North Korea or on North Vietnam. Can a reasonable person argue that neither war, Korea or Vietnam, would have happened if Congress had strictly construed the requirement for a formal declaration of war in the Constitution rather than finding a way to circumvent it? Regardless of your answer, yes or no, understand who really bears the responsibility for our nation’s protracted military conflicts, whether righteous in cause or ill-advised. Congress is responsible, not the President.

There is also a diplomatic reason for not "declaring war" on a country. Diplomat’s claim that by declaring war, we are holding an entire nation’s populace responsible for the actions of only a few of its leaders, whether elected or not. In the case of recent public opposition to the War on Terror (in Afghanistan and Iraq), those who oppose the conflicts claim there was no 'target' for a legal declaration of war except various political groups, religious sects or individuals. Since an invading army does seek to occupy an entire country, such as Iraq, and if victorious actually does occupy Iraq and control an entire population, there could just as easily have been a formal declaration of war against Iraq. If there is a distinction, there isn’t much of a difference.

Many Democratic Party advocates of an omnipotent government (socialists) are ideologically against “formal declarations of war.” They argue that such declarations of war refuse to acknowledge the legitimate sovereignty of another government, and that sovereignty should be more important than any actual or potential human rights abuses by the target government. (If so, consider the scenario of a heavily armed husband beating his wife. Other members of the family are mysteriously missing. Is it your wish that a police officer ignore the brutality in tacit respect for the family’s privacy and sovereignty? Democrats, by their theory of privacy and sovereignty, should argue yes, but have legislated domestic violence law the opposite way in every state. Islamofascists hold the view that the brutality toward a man’s family is the husband’s god-given right. Most Democrats would have the police officer take the husband to jail, but choose instead to leave Saddam Hussein to continue his documented list of human rights abuses, including gassing his own people, brutal torture and imprisonment, killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and disposing of them in mass graves. In 2002, most Republicans and enough Democrats voted to enter the house of Iraq and arrest Saddam Hussein, take him to jail and try him in a court of law for his crimes against humanity.

In the case of Iraq, even Iraqis contend that the deposed Hussein government was a regime with a history of incredible human rights abuses. Hence the expression, “regime changes.” Accordingly, the targets of most hostilities are the recognized leaders of the country with which war (or use of force) is declared. Rest assured, there were many other reasons the United States chose to invade Iraq, many of which you already know, but the case for the invasion was made on Saddam Hussein’s non-compliance with numerous United Nation’s resolutions and the threat he posed in the region and to the United States if he possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction.

There is still another issue to explore, the liberal ideology of imposing our standards of human rights and nation building. Some people always seem to want to intervene in other people’s business, in this case to liberate people from a tyrannical or illegitimate regime, or a regime of religious oppression and genocide by Muslims on Muslims as in Iraq, and by Muslims on non-Muslims as in Darfur. Bosnia-Herzegovina and Somalia are other recent examples. You can see the mindset in your own community in Arizona where government representatives step in and “save” the children of a particular family from further alleged child abuse or neglect. Save the world, save the children, abort the pregnancy? Ostensibly, we are trying to save the Iraqi citizens from further alleged abuse by a pathological tyrant. Whether we should or should not is an individual’s intellectual, emotional and religious decision. If we don’t agree, in the United States we vote. The anti-war protesters who engage in civil disobedience and crude behavior toward veterans are those who refuse to respect either the democratic process or the outcome of the vote.

Current status of the U.S. debate

Heated debate developed in the United States shortly after September 11, 2001. Opponents of the ‘use of military force’ argued that the Iraq War was patently unconstitutional, because the military action lacked a clear declaration of war. Secondly, opponents claimed the war was being waged over the objection of a significant number of citizens of all demographics in the United States. These same people blindly refuse to acknowledge that it was they who elected their representatives and those representatives chose (voted democratically in Congress) to go to war in Iraq.

Instead of formal war declarations, Congress’ most controversial use of authorizations of force included the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that is generally credited with American participation in the Vietnam War, and the resolution that preceded the War in Iraq. Those who question the legality of these authorizations of force say that requiring a precise and formal declaration of war would keep administrations honest by forcing them to lay out their case to the American people while, at the same time, forcing Congress to honor instead of avoiding its constitutional role.

Those who oppose requiring formal declarations of war argue that an "Authorization of the Use of Military Force" not only satisfies constitutional requirements but has an established historical precedent. Furthermore, the constitutional powers of the president as commander-in-chief does vest in him broad powers specific to "waging" and "commencing" war.

On February 6, 2006 U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said in his testimony to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency's surveillance authority:

“There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaeda or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force.”

The courts have wisely and consistently refused to intervene in this matter, and in practice presidents have the power to commit forces with congressional approval but without a declaration of war. Any disagreements are left to the electorate to resolve in a ballot box.

Bottom line:
1. A formal declaration of war by Congress toward another nation has not occurred.
2. An “Authorization of the Use of Military Force” has been passed by Congress authorizing and funding the current military initiatives by the Administration in Afghanistan and Iraq.
3. We all support the Commander-in-Chief. We elected him and the decisions are his. Those who agree with the decision to fight a “war on terror” in Asia (Afghanistan and Iraq) should give credit to Congress. Those who consider Operation Enduring Freedom a poor decision should recognize that it is Congress that bears the responsibility. It is Congress, your Senators and Representatives, and only them, who bear the blame or deserve the credit for the decision, regardless of what this or any other president may or may not want to do. Once authorized by Congress, the Administration is primarily responsible for the conduct of the war until it ends, and the subsequent administration of the peace.
4. The President has the sole authority to initiate a limited conflict using U.S. Armed Forces, but does not have the sole authority to sustain it on the scale of Afghanistan or Iraq, or for an extended length of time, without both authorization and continued funding from Congress, which he received by the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502), and numerous subsequent appropriations bills seeking additional funding.

Hope this helps in your discussions ….
Love, Dad (Marty)

P.S. Think about the phrase “War on Terror.” Recognize that ‘terror’ is a tactic within a conflict, not a finite enemy. It is pretty hard for Congress to formally declare war on a tactic. Islamic militants are distributed throughout the world (20% of the world population) and the source of the conflict with Islam comes from many nations, sometimes independent of their governments, but not always. So why didn’t Congress declare war on Islam, the only source of the terrorism worldwide for the last 60 years? It is probably safe to say that there will never be a formal declaration of war against Islam in our politically correct society (which history may look back on as a fatal self-emasculation).

History Test – Multiple Choices
The following events are actual incidents from past history. They actually happened! Try hard to discern the correct answer. If you have to cross out two answers and guess between the other two, maybe that will be of some help.

1. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:

a. Olga Corbitt
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzeneger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

2. In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by:

a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

3. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:

a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

4. In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:

a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

5. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American Passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:

a. The Smurfs
b. Davy Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

6. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a U.S. Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:

a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

7. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:

a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

8. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:

a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

9. In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:

a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill’s women problems \
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

10. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:

a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr. Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

11. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:

a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

12. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:

a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

Nope, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you?

So, to insure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly Muslims intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, and Caucasian airline pilots with proper identification, not to mention secret agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winning former Governors – but for all that is precious in America, to avoid having to listen to the liberals wail in the night, leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 & 40 alone because of ‘profiling’ and accusations of racism.

As the writer of the story "Forrest Gump" so aptly put it, "Stupid is as stupid does."

Posted November 15, 2006 12:35 AM
Read more on Congress