To Declare Wars or Not

George Rebane

After the end of our last declared war, diplomat extraordinaire and historian George Kennan wrote in 1946 what has come to be known as the ‘Long Telegram’ (q.v.) outlining a policy to contain the post-war global aspirations of the USSR.  That was quickly followed by his now famous ‘X article’ – ‘The Sources of Soviet Conduct’ in Foreign Affairs – which expanded on the recognition that Stalin’s real objective was to dedicate the USSR to foment revolution to “defeat the capitalist forces in the outside world” which required the overthrow of western governments.  In this piece his oft-quoted seminal observation was that -

“… the main element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies ... Soviet pressure against the free institutions of the Western world is something that can be contained by the adroit and vigilant application of counterforce at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points, corresponding to the shifts and manoeuvers of Soviet policy, but which cannot be charmed or talked out of existence.”  (emphasis as in its subsequent references)

This policy with variants was adopted and implemented in its essence by all subsequent US presidents until the USSR collapsed in 1991.  Fundamentally, history has judged the containment policy through “adroit and vigilant applications of counterforce” wherever needed to have been successful.  During the entire period from 1945 to 1991 and to the present, neither the US nor any developed country has bothered to apply force or counterforce under an umbrella of a formal declaration of war.  World order, such as it is, has been maintained by the ad hoc application of military force by individual nation-states acting alone or within some loose alliances cobbled together for political reasons.

But the pragmatism that has underpinned such undeclared hostilities for more than half a century is easy to see.  Three principal reasons to proceed without formal declaration come to mind –

1. A declared war needs to have an objective of victory over an identified enemy that controls territory, people, and resources. The declaring party needs also then to put its nation on a wartime footing with all the concomitant sacrifices in force.
2. Foreign policy objectives can be achieved by the use of many kinds of force without the declaration of war which requires the commitment of foreign powers to declare themselves an ally or some other form of a committed partner of the declaring nation.
3. A formally declared war must continue until some formal instrument of peace or cessation of hostilities is negotiated and signed, else it continues indefinitely. Such terminating negotiations are more often than not difficult, expensive, and take a long time.

Now regarding Islamists and dawa, I tend to hold with Popper and Kennan as far as a responsive policy is concerned.  To understand what I mean, take Kennan’s paragraph above and substitute Islamist et al for the USSR et al.  It would then read –

The main element of any United States policy toward Islamism must be a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of dawa and Islamist expansive tendencies ... Islamist pressure against the free institutions of the Western world is something that can be contained by the adroit and vigilant application of counterforce at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points, corresponding to the shifts and manoeuvers of Islamist policy, but which cannot be charmed or talked out of existence. 

None of this involves a declaration of war against Islamism, since that in its essence is a state-less distributed assault, especially in its promotion of dawa inside the borders of western countries already suffering from unassimilating Islamic colonization.  Were we to seek the stasist solution, promoted by many libertarians and progressives, of waiting for Islamism to condense into an attackable nation-state, it would be too late for the simple reason that this will never happen.  That kind of a world has passed a good many years ago.

And if people still believe that our current Constitution does not already provide for America to fight for its survival, without the declaration of war, through the timely, adroit, and vigilant application of counterforce at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points, then we should appropriately amend the Constitution to make that possible.

Comments

[Paul Emery]

George if I were to except your argument about the obsolescence of declared war being a precedent for military response what kind of insurance would we have that would prevent a president from using military force purely at his whim ? What process in your view should be in place as a check and balance to That potential Abuse of power which may have been used in all recent history Vietnam being an example

[Paul Emery]

Sorry for the spelling I'm not very good at this kind of typing

[Paul Emery]

I mean the current administration as expressed Who the views of trumps press secretary doesn't even acknowledge that Hitler use chemical weapons in World War II Difficult to trust the judgment of this administration

[Paul Emery]

Let me rewrite this...

I mean the current administration policy, as expressed by the views of Trumps press secretary, doesn't even acknowledge that Hitler used chemical weapons in World War II Difficult to trust the judgment of this administration

[fish]

Posted by: Paul Emery | 11 April 2017 at 04:27 PM

Chemical weapons in combat were barely used at all Paul.

[Paul Emery]

Fish

Are you saying that there was not a war against the Jewish people and others perpetuated by Hitler that used chemical weapons?

[Don Bessee]

It was the Imperial Japanese who were the most profligate user of germs and gas on the Chinese. Hitler on the other hand who had been personally gassed in WWI was not big on the battlefield use. The Nazis started with bullets then carbon monoxide before settling on the gas bug spray zyklon for industrial mass killing in the camps.

Here is the conversation topic I have seen nowhere in the lamestream media; given that Syria has gas and has massive debts to Iran, does any question the likelihood that the Iranians and Hezbollah have it also?

So if Hezbollah drops gas filled rockets on Israel what will the nuke holding Israelis do in response, especially given the WWII Jewish experience?

[George Rebane]

PaulE 515pm - Are you being silly on purpose? You really gotta work on your gotcha questions.

[Paul Emery]

George

The Comment that Fish made is really stupid Yet you choose to question my language Good grief. I mean he says chemical weapons were barely used by the Germans

[Gregory]

Paul Emery, words mean things. The gas chamber at San Quentin wasn't a "weapon" and neither were the gas chambers in Nazi death camps used in their industrial scale exterminations. A chemical weapon of mass destruction would typically be a bomb or artillery shell that could be used on a battlefield whether rural or urban.

The Nazis invented Sarin and could have weaponized the stuff but they didn't. The cyanide poisons they used in their mass killing chambers had been tried in WW1 gas attacks but didn't work very well.

A grandfather I never knew was a US Army soldier in WW1 and was gassed, mustard, I think. He recovered. Nasty stuff. Apparently Hitler also got a snootful of that crap as a soldier in that war and there is some speculation that's the reason he didn't want to use chemical weapons on the battlefield.

So no, the Nazis didn't use chemical weapons and this is yet another "journalistic" feeding frenzy.

[Don Bessee]

What's wrong with Fish @ 449 po' ol' PE? ;-)

[Paul Emery]

GREGORY what was the point that trumps guy was trying to say if not that Assad was worse than Hitler

[Bill Tozer]

Look at WW1 if you need to see why chemical warfare was banned internationally. WW2, not much used if at all, on major battlefields.

[Gregory]

PAUL he said what he said. Try a quote rather than the Paul Emery emotional interpretation.

Here's a chemical journal's treatment of the subject:
"Third Reich chemists invented the devastating chemical weapons, but the Nazis didn’t deploy them against the Allies during World War II"
http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i41/Nazi-origins-deadly-nerve-gases.html

[Walt]

Good Lord. Paul is trying to talk history again. It never turns out well for Paul.

[Paul Emery]

No one said they deployed them against us but they sure did deploy chemical weapons against the Jews and the gypsies so what's the point of what he was trying to say ?

[Todd Juvinall]

Trump's guy Estes win the open seat in Kansas 4. The press was doing their thing again. Oh my will this be a trend on Trump's popularity? etc. blah blah blah. Oh golly Estes won.

[fish]

Posted by: Paul Emery | 11 April 2017 at 07:51 PM

The temptation to pile on here in the face of your obvious confusion is overwhelming! So I'm not going to.

[Missing italics termination was again needed at the end of your comment. gjr]

[Paul Emery]

Yeah fish is fish you lay low on this one I agree

[Paul Emery]

I mean even Spicer himself is basically begging for forgiveness at this point I actually kind a like him. It was a really stupid thing to say and he knows it

[Paul Emery]

Spicer Quote " I made a mistake and beg for forgiveness "

[Paul Emery]

Correction " I made a mistake and ask for forgiveness "

[Todd Juvinall]

So forgive him. That is the Druid way right? Or is it decapitation?

[Paul Emery]

I forgive him Todd. He's asking for forgiveness do you forgive him ?

[George Rebane]

fish 814pm - You know, you really ought to give up on using italics in these comment streams. It's getting tiresome cleaning up after you;-)

[Paul Emery]

Todd I don't see you forgiving Spicer like I did. Isn't that the Christian thing to do ? druids beleave in forgiveness if a person confesses to doing something really stupid like he did I guess that doesn't qualify under your Christian ethic.

[Todd Juvinall]

Paul Emery you are just too funny.

[fish]

Posted by: Paul Emery | 11 April 2017 at 08:21 PM

Yeah fish is fish you lay low on this one I agree

???? More of your patented "Triple S" sentence stylings following another of your "episodes".

[Paul Emery]

Todd

The local Druid Clump (that's what we call a congregation) will be hosting a log pounding session for you next full moon, April 30, helping you to cleanse yourself of the guilt of casting judgement on Sean Spicer and not accepting his apology for saying something stupid.

[Todd Juvinall]

Sure, time and place and I'll be there. Can I tape it for Gil?

[Bonnie McGuire]

Here's some history involving chemical warfare. Beware of human natures constant mental/spiritual warfare...
https://www.chemheritage.org/distillations/magazine/a-brief-history-of-chemical-war

[Bill Tozer]

1:45 pm
Two full moons in April? The recent one (like yesterday) explains a lot.

[Robert Cross]

Are you people out of your minds? You are arguing the semantics of whether or not gassing millions of people in gas chambers constitutes a "battlefield" use of chemical weapons. Gassing people is murder, period, whether it's dropped from a bomb, shot in a shell, or distributed via fake shower head. This is insane and it is all about defending Spicer's absurd comment that only demonstrated just how stupid the people in trump's administration really are. Trump is an egomaniac and, as such, would never surround himself with people smarter than he is. Multiple people from "Saturday Night Live" commenting on trump's appearances on the show have said that he could barely read his lines and is basically functionally illiterate. So what does that make Spicer and the rest of trump's crew? And yes, I know they have a lot of money which is by no means any measurement of intelligence, especially when you inherit it.

[Todd Juvinall]

Sure Robert Cross, you are on to something. Spicer was mistaken. Liberal making the same error are forgiven and given a propmotion. Obama and his 57 states propelled him to the Presidency. And many more. Spicer apologized and I accept it. You can't becasue you are a liberal hack and any error is a firable offnse. Pelosi beat you to it and called for his removal. But hey, you are right, Trump is just a dumbass and 10 billion dollars and a real estate empire proves it. And his election by half the people too. So SNL says he has a issue with reading? My goodness, must be all those contracts and the fine pront from his empire. But of course this is America and even you, a failed bureacrat can diss those much better and more important then you. Good grief.

[Paul Emery]

Sure you can be there Todd. First you have to go through a purification though. Earthman, our regional spiritual advisor will be in contact with you about details. This is a sacred ceremony that can't be discussed excerpt in person.

[Paul Emery]

Robert

The amazing thing here is that even though Spicer admitted his mistake there are those who still believe in what he said including some participants on this blog (Todd excepted at this point) including Fish and Gregory. All they had to say is it was a stupid thing to say (Spicer) but instead they tried to justify his thinking. Amazing...

Gregory I recall you jumped all over me when I used a Hitler comparison to some point I was making. Not so this time when Repub Spicer did the same. Curious...

[Bill Tozer]

Yep. that novice Spicer really stepped in it. Didn't he know that all Hilter comparisons are the sole purview of the Left? What was he thinking?

[Todd Juvinall]

BillT, true. The left has a sole possession for Hitler comparisons. And when a outsider uses it, it is unacceptable. What a hoot!

[Todd Juvinall]

The difference Paul Emery of you being chastised for using the Hitler comaprison is easy. Trump has not killed anyone and you use it against him. Spicer was using the killer to killer comaprison. Easy to figure out.

[Walt]

Speaking of Hitler,, It's the LIB constituency that acts as a close resemblance to the well known "brown shirts".

[Bill Tozer]

Quote of the day:

“That the missiles are called tomahawks must enrage a lot of Native Americans.” —Mother Jones editor Clara Jeffery (“On behalf of the Jewish people, I am willing to waive all offense if we rename Tomahawk missiles Hebrew Hammers.” —Ben Shapiro)
--------------------------------
Is this what all the fuss was about? Geez, the way Botox Queen Nancy called for Spicer to be fired, I would have thought he quoted Maxine Waters or something ghastly like that.. Is that all there is to a firestorm???

Non Compos Mentis Godwin’s Law Moment of the Week or Whatever: “We didn’t use chemical weapons in World War II. You know, you had someone as despicable as Hitler who didn’t even sink to using chemical weapons.” —Trump spokesman Sean Spicer in a pathetically convoluted attempt to talk about Assad’s chemical weapons use, for which he later apologized.

[fish]

Posted by: Paul Emery | 12 April 2017 at 04:04 PM

The amazing thing here is that even though Spicer admitted his mistake there are those who still believe in what he said including some participants on this blog (Todd excepted at this point) including Fish and Gregory. All they had to say is it was a stupid thing to say (Spicer) but instead they tried to justify his thinking. Amazing...
Gregory I recall you jumped all over me when I used a Hitler comparison to some point I was making. Not so this time when Repub Spicer did the same. Curious...

Spicer admitted a mistake ....not the mistake.....that the only group who gets to set the Nazi narrative are Jewish special interest groups.

Now to your other point reasonable people when discussing the issue of chemical weapons used during wartime can make the following statement:

1) "Chemical weapons were used extensively by the Germans in combat operations during WWI".

This would be a historically accurate statement.

Reasonable people could also make the following statement:

2) "The Germans used almost no chemical weapons during combat operations during WWII".

Spicer made his claims in the context of the Syrian government delivering chemical weapons from aircraft into the battle zone. Was it stupid? Yes ......for the reasons mentioned above! Was it accurate? Far more accurate than your claim that extermination camp murders were in any way battle or combat related. If you and "Bobby the Pearl Clutcher" want to provide evidence that Assad is herding people into gas chambers I suppose we can discuss that.....but again that wouldn't be combat.

I really can't even get mad at you for arguments like this any more. You make a claim, are shown evidence that it's incorrect and jump right back on your horse to joust with another vaguely related strawman. I don't even think you are being disingenuous anymore, I think your descending into senescence!

Oh.... and if Gregory jumped all over you for making a Hitler reference it's almost certainly because you botched it! Not curious at all!

[Walt]

On the subject of war,, see the news? We just dropped an industrial sized can of whoopass
in Afghanistan. "O" didn't have the balls to use it,, but Trumps sure does.

[Bill Tozer]

Walt, days ago on April 13 @ 10:23am.
My, my.
First, calling the Mother of all Bombs (MOAB) "mother" is assuring MOAB's gender. That is a no-no.

Second, the Daisy Cutters and bunker busters are missing their Mother.

Third, that Crazy Fat Kid known as KIM (yes, Kim is a guy) really looked like a crazy fat kid again. I wish I could help him out in his hour of disappointment.

https://www.facebook.com/lastamericapatriots/photos/rpp.235086849974878/834012670082290/?type=3&theater