Why do so many threads refer to "THE WAR"?

[Angela Shelley]

The term "War on Iraq" is a misconception.


There was an "attack on Iraq",

followed by an "invasion of Iraq",

leading to the "occupation of Iraq"


BEGIN EDIT (thanks to a fellow DUer)

ending in the "destruction of Iraq"

END EDIT

[Tommy_Carcetti]

1. For purposes of brevity

Our soliders are being shot and killed in action in a particular location. Our soldiers are shooting and killing others in a particular location. That equals a war in most people's common vernacular.

Call it what you will, a war, an invasion, an occupation, what have you. But regardless of what you call it, above all it is an unholy mess.

[bryant69]

2. Aren't attacks invasions and occupations part of a war?

Maybe I'm missing something.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[LakeSamish706]

3. Thats another issue that should be addressed by Congress...

This Administration keeps saying that we are at war, so what is the legal term for what we are at?

[Angela Shelley]

5. Well, if the administration says it,

then it must be true.

[cgrindley]

4. Uh... attack, invasion and occupation are parts of war

that's basically what a war is... it's an attack, an invasion and then an occupation. Pretty much every single war in human history has more or less followed that basic plan.

[sampsonblk]

16. Occupation comes after the war, not during-nt

[cgrindley]

18. No

the whole process is war. By your suggestion the Second World War ended with the Nazi occupation of Europe and then D-Day must have seen the start of World War III.

[sampsonblk]

19. No

By your suggestion, WWII was still going on while we occupied Germany and Japan. The US occupied the confederate states for years after our civil war ended.

The Nazi wars against individual countries ended when those countries ceased organized resistance and were occupied. But WWII was a series of conflicts between several nations. Its not comparable to other 1-on-1 wars.

In this case, we invaded Iraq. The opposing force was the Iraqi military. In a few weeks, they were destroyed along with their government, and we occupied their country. Bush flew in celebrate the victory. War over.

But the occupation has not gone any better for us than its gone for invaders of the past.

[cgrindley]

27. Yes, WWII was still going on when you occupied Japan (nt)

[sampsonblk]

38. Till when?-nt

[cgrindley]

39. I guess it still continues in Okinawa

Listen: nine hundred years from now when the real histories are being written, the sentence is going to read:


although a formal peace was signed in 1946, the last American troops were not withdrawn until 2022.


That's how history works.

[sampsonblk]

40. True. Will V-J Day be moved?-nt

[cgrindley]

42. It will be remembered in the same breath as Armistice Day

Daddy, what's a Japan?

[BushOut06]

6. Tell that to the people in Iraq

It may not be a legally declared war, but it's a war nonetheless. Were there fighting and casualties during the attack, invasion, and occupation? Tell the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis that the United States wasn't making war on them.

[Angela Shelley]

8. I can imagine that they already know

the difference between an attack and a war.

[BushOut06]

23. So, if one country attacks another country, and fighting ensues, that's not a war?

Just curious how you define war. Does "war" only exist when the United States Congress officially declares it?

From Dictionary.com
1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.

3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.

4. active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.



From Merriam-Webster
1 a (1): a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2): a period of such armed conflict (3): state of war b: the art or science of warfare c (1)obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2)archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war

2 a: a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b: a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease>

[LakeSamish706]

7. Here is an interesting read on "War"!

http://encarta.msn.com/guide_whocandeclarewar/Who_Can_Declare_War_Backgrounder_and_Research_Guide.html

Who Can Declare War? Backgrounder and Research Guide

Seeking to oust Iraq's authoritarian leader, Saddam Hussein, United States president George W. Bush petitioned both the U.S. Congress and the Security Council of the United Nations (UN) to authorize a military strike against Iraq. The Bush administration accused Iraq of stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and argued that Saddam Hussein's regime posed a grave threat to U.S. security and peace in the region.

After intensive lobbying by the Bush administration, in early October 2002, the U.S. House of Representatives and then the U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly to give President Bush broad authority to use force against Iraq. Then on November 8, 2002, the Bush administration won a unanimous vote by the UN Security Council requiring Iraq to demonstrate that it is disarming its weapons of mass destruction or face "serious consequences." The UN then sent a team of weapons inspectors to Iraq to verify Iraqi compliance with this resolution, known as UN Resolution 1441.
Bombing of Baghdad, 2003

By early 2003, the Bush administration, together with the governments of the United Kingdom and Spain, insisted that Iraq was not adequately cooperating with the weapons inspectors, and they lobbied for a second UN resolution that would threaten Iraq with war if it did not disarm by a specific date. However, the three allies eventually realized their proposal did not have sufficient backing at the UN, and on March 17, 2003, said they would not seek a vote on the new resolution. After abandoning his appeal to the UN, President Bush declared, "The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security." On March 20, U.S.-led forces began an attack of Iraq.

Why did the president bother to make these overtures to Congress and the UN? Who, finally, has the authority to wage war?

The president
The president of the United States has no clear constitutional authority to declare war without congressional approval. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the president, as commander-in-chief of the military, does have the authority to recognize a "state of war" initiated against the United States and may in these circumstances unilaterally send U.S. troops into battle. President Bush has also stated that his powers as commander-in-chief allow him to act independently in defense of the nation.

The president did not seek a formal declaration of war from Congress. But he did seek congressional support, he said, to demonstrate to the United Nations and to the world that military action against Iraq was not just his own objective; it was a view supported by the American electorate as a whole. Strategically, support from the legislators bolstered the president's case as he pressed the UN Security Council for a resolution authorizing military force in Iraq.
U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C.

Congress
The Constitution of the United States gives Congress alone the authority to formally declare war. But in several past conflicts Congress has relinquished this authority to the president. In fact, Congress has not issued a formal declaration of war since World War II.

U.S. presidents after World War II have assumed most of the authority to send U.S. troops into battle. The Korean War (1950-1953), for example, was regarded by the U.S. government as a police action rather than as a war, and President Harry S. Truman never sought a declaration of war from Congress. And in 1964 Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which effectively ceded to President Lyndon B. Johnson the ability to wage war against Vietnam. Congress passed a similar resolution on January 12, 1991, authorizing President George H. W. Bush to use force against Iraq in the Persian Gulf War.

The current president Bush also never sought a formal declaration of war from Congress. Instead, he requested, and received, the authority to use armed forces "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" to defend American interests against "the continuing threat posed by Iraq."

The United Nations
The United Nations Security Council is the only organ of the United Nations that can authorize military action to enforce its resolutions or to reestablish peace in a region of conflict. It is composed of 15 member states, of which five are permanent. All five permanent members--the United States, Russia, Great Britain, France, and China--must vote unanimously to approve military force.

The Bush administration forcefully lobbied the Security Council to pass a tough new resolution similar to the one it passed on November 29, 1990, after Iraq invaded Kuwait. That earlier resolution allowed UN member states to "use all necessary means" to force Iraq from Kuwait if Iraq remained in the country after January 15, 1991. When Iraq ignored the resolution, it paved the way for a subsequent U.S. congressional resolution authorizing military force and, ultimately, the Persian Gulf War.

The current Bush administration won a similar demonstration of international support from the Security Council for the possible use of military force against Iraq. UN Resolution 1441, passed by the Security Council on November 8, 2002, required Iraq to reveal all its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs to UN inspectors.

Soon after the UN weapons inspection team entered Iraq later that month, however, member nations of the Security Council began to stridently debate its findings. The United States and Britain contended that Iraq had fallen far short of the disarmament demands required by Resolution 1441. Other nations--France in particular--suggested that the UN should not rush to war, but should instead give the weapons inspectors more time to complete their mission.

The Bush administration argued that the resolution left the United States free to take military action against Iraq without a subsequent resolution specifically authorizing force. In a press conference on February 1, 2003, President Bush said, "Should the United Nations decide to pass a second resolution, it would be welcomed if it is yet another signal that we're intent upon disarming Saddam Hussein. But 1441 gives us the authority to move without any second resolution." Other member nations of the Security Council--notably France, Germany, Russia, and China--argued that Resolution 1441 did not provide such latitude for military action, and that any such action taken against Iraq would be illegitimate without a second UN resolution expressly authorizing force.

Finally losing patience with the pace of weapons inspections, the United States, Britain, and Spain proposed a second resolution threatening military force if Iraq did not disarm by a specific date. However, the three allies failed to win sufficient support among other member nations of the Security Council and withdrew their proposal before it came to a vote. After withdrawing the proposal, President Bush declared, "The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours." He then announced that the United States and its allies were free to strike Iraq without UN approval.

Background
The following articles offer further background on the enduring question of who has the authority to declare war.

Articles marked with a (*) are available to those with access to MSN Encarta Premium. Learn more.

What is war?

* War--an overview of armed conflict, from the perspective of international law.
* Warfare--a comprehensive discussion of military confrontations, including the types of war, and the history and future of war.
* Declaration of War--formal announcements of hostile intentions by nations against each other.

Who declared past wars?

* Korean War--military struggle fought on the Korean Peninsula in the early 1950s. The United States never formally declared war against North Korea because it considered the conflict a police action rather than a war in the legal sense.
* Vietnam War--armed conflict fought in Vietnam from 1959 to 1975. U.S. involvement in the war intensified dramatically after Congress ceded war-making powers to President Lyndon Johnson with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
* Gulf of Tonkin Resolution*--resolution passed by Congress on August 7, 1964, which gave President Johnson virtually unchecked authority to wage war in Vietnam. The resolution provided the basis for much of the United States military involvement in the Vietnam War.
* Persian Gulf War--armed conflict that began in August 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. The subsequent fighting in early 1991 between Iraq and an international coalition of forces led by the United States ended the Iraqi occupation, but did not topple its authoritarian leader, Saddam Hussein.

U.S. law & declarations of war

* President of the United States--although he is the commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces, the president has no clear constitutional authority to declare war.
* Congress of the United States--the sole branch of government with the constitutional authority to formally declare war.
* War Powers Resolution*--text of the 1973 congressional resolution that attempted to restrict the president's ability to order military deployments by calling for the president to consult with Congress before sending troops into hostilities, to make periodic reports on the status of hostilities, and to end unauthorized hostilities after 60 days.

International authorities

* United Nations--international body established after World War II to promote world peace and cooperation.
* United Nations Security Council*--the only branch of the UN that can authorize military action to enforce its resolutions.

Also on MSN Encarta
Famous quotes about war

Also on MSN
Latest news on MSNBC
MSNBC: America at War
News and analysis on Slate
America at War

[Angela Shelley]

9. Thanks for the info on "Declarations of War"

Declaration of War--formal announcements of hostile intentions by nations against each other.

When did the opposing nation make the announcement?

[Quantess]

22. Thank you for reminding everyone that it is an occupation, illegal at that.

Technically, it's not a war.

[Brian Fearn]

12. Interesting read; Bush admin lawyers have argued...

...that presidents *do* have the authority to wage war without congressional approval. But, they say, that doesn't mean that the President is all-powerful, because Congress retains the power to cut off funding for the military, which would render the President's efforts ineffectual. As far as the constitutional enumeration of powers goes, they interpret the phrase "declare war" as a mere power to make some kind "formal announcement" to the international community, not as a power to decide whether the President can take the military to war. *The Powers of War and Peace* by John Yoo is one example of this kind of legal thinking.

Lots of legal scholars have been appalled by this. I'm doing some work on this issue and may post it on DU at some point.

[lpbk2713]

10. Add to your list ... the destruction of Iraq.

If hostilities ever cease, the whole country will have to be rebuilt.

[Echo In Light]

11. "Liberated" ... from their earthly existence

[Brian Fearn]

13. And what about the "War on Terror?"

Is the "War on Terror" a true state of war? Is there such a thing as a war that is neither an international conflict nor a civil war?

Bush admin supporters argue that such a war can exist, that we are in such a war, and that "combatants" captured in such a war are not protected by the Geneva Conventions of 1949, because the types of conflicts specified by those conventions are not the same kind of conflict as the one we are in now.

Basically, they want the administration to have all the powers of war with none of the traditional limitations -- no limits on what constitutes the "theater of war" or legitimate targets or proper conditions of imprisonment that apply to POWs.

Really frightening stuff.

[Bigmack]

14. Why use "The War"???

Because "bloody clusterfuck" ain't polite.

[Spazito]

15. It should be referred to as the illegal invasion and occupation

of Iraq. That's what it was and is. It is NOT a war, never was a war, never declared a war.

[BushOut06]

24. An illegal invasion and occupation can still be a war

Was Vietnam a war? It wasn't officially declared a war. But tell anyone who served in Vietnam that they weren't fighting a war.

[Spazito]

34. One can "call" anything a war, that does not make it a war, legally....

It is clear in your Constitution that Congress is the only branch of government with the power to declare war:

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Congress has formally declared war on 5 occasions:

War of 1812
Mexican American War
Spanish American War
WWI
WWII

All other fall into categories other than this, for example:

The Vietnam "war" falls under the category of extended military engagements NOT under the category of war as formally understood and authorized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Formal_declarations_of_war

[BushOut06]

36. So basically, the bloodiest conflict on American soil wasn't really a war

I'm talking about the Civil War, by the way. War was never officially declared - that would have required the Union to recognize the Confederacy as a sovereign nation. Would you consider the Civil War to have been an actual war?

[Spazito]

37. Not according to your Constitution, it was a civil conflict

Here is a quote from Abraham Lincoln that I find appropriate:

"If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? No, calling a tail a leg don't make it a leg."

[Brian Fearn]

25. I may be wrong on this, but...

...I think the U.N. can recognize a conflict as a state of war even if war is never formally declared and even if it is a breach of international law. A "war" is just the government of one territory trying to wrest control from the government of another territory through military action.

[Spazito]

35. My focus was regarding declarations of war as defined in the US Constitution...

as to the broader legal aspects of how war is declared or defined. You use a very important word, imo, that being "conflict", often conflict is described as war but that does not make it a war in defined terms, imo.

[leftist_not_liberal]

17. Because the lazy are common and the foolish think Afghanistan is OK

[Captain Hilts]

20. Like it or not it IS a war. Our people are being shot at and killed.

I've seen them at Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval.

That makes it a war to me.

[stillcool]

21. My definition of war...

has gone the way of my new definition of freedom. We don't go to war with....we go to war 'on'. War on drugs, war on Christmas, War on Iraq...whatever. Maybe the term 'war-on' is appropriate now that weaponry can blow human beings to smithereens via shock and awe from the sky. Maybe plain old 'war' is what happens later..like a 'war of pacification'.

[BushOut06]

26. I don't get your point

This isn't a "war" as in the "war on Christmas", "war on poverty", "war on drugs", etc. There are bullets flying, bombs exploding, people getting killed and wounded every day. Thousands of American soldiers dead, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead. This isn't some mere "idealistic" war, it's a real blood-and-bullets war.

[stillcool]

28. The use of the word 'war'

in my mind, has been over-used and mis-used to such a degree, that the connotation of 'war' has been diluted, and perhaps taken on a new meaning. What defines war? Is it dead bodies? who is at war with who? Do you know? Does anybody know? Private Security Contractors recruit from across the globe. They as an industry represent the largest force in Iraq,...but who do they work for? I don't know how to define such a conflict. A million people being killed as a result of what to me is no more than a merger and acquisition, should have a far, far more devious definition than the term 'war'. The idealistic excuse of removing a dictator, and bringing freedom by the complete destruction of an entire society seems something much more than war. Sorry if you are offended by my perception.

[Brian Fearn]

29. War = organized armed groups fighting for monopoly government of territory

This covers both civil and international war and negates the idea that 9/11 was an "act of war."

Seems like a pretty decent definition to me.

[BushOut06]

30. Not offended at all

And I agree, that the word "war" gets overused - ie the war on drugs.

However, in this case, I think it does fit the 'classic' definition, that being two parties engaged in physical combat with each other, resulting in casualties on both sides. Yes, our invasion and occupation was illegal. It might not be the great massing of armies that one usually thinks of when one mentions war. But there is literal, physical fighting going on between two sides - the invaders, and those defending their land against us.

[stillcool]

31. Perhaps it is ..

my ignorance to the reality of the historical waging of war that is to blame for my mis-perception. To me..Iraq is kind of like the United Fruit Company in South America on a grander scale, with more players, more weapons, and a bigger prize. It seems that there is a lack of law..international law...that applies to multi-national corporations involved to such a degree in an armed conflict, that the classic definition no longer applies. I can guess who the invaders represent, and even the defenders, but the truth is that I have no idea. Maybe this is war in the new millennium, and aside from dead bodies I just don't recognize it.

[Dukkha]

32. Vietnam was never an official "war" either

but a police action that escalated for years unabated

[VOX]

33. There was no formal declaration of war against Vietnam, either...

But that is consistantly referred to as the Vietnam War. Just the way it is.

William Tecumseh Sherman, in his address to the graduating class of Michigan Military Academy, June 19, 1879: "There is many a boy here today who looks on war as all glory, but, boys, it is all hell."

[Occam Bandage]

41. Because it's a war. You don't think people are firing back?