What is a War?

I know I have a blog post that already asks the question, "Are we at war?" For some, the answer is "yes," for others (including, sometimes, our President) it is a resounding "NO!"

I'm not going to debate that schism right now; it truly isn't important to the discussion.

However, a recent op-ed in the Los Angeles Times by Mario Cuomo (former Governor of New York) got me thinking about the various definitions of war-- legal, denotative, connotative and obvious. He makes some interesting, if not absolutely backed up by any kind of research, points in the article:

"The war happened because when Bush first indicated his intention to go to war against Iraq, Congress refused to insist on enforcement of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. For more than 200 years, this article has spelled out that Congress -- not the president -- shall have "the power to declare war." Because the Constitution cannot be amended by persistent evasion, this constitutional mandate was not erased by the actions of timid Congresses since World War II that allowed eager presidents to start wars in Vietnam and elsewhere without a "declaration" by Congress."

For reference, this is the relevant part of Article I, Section 8:

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

Congress, indeed, is giving the sole authority to "declare" (I use quotes because apparently that's the real crux of Cuomo's argument-- nobody "declared war") war. No dispute there. However, we get to the heart of the debate in his next paragraph:

"Nor were the feeble, post-factum congressional resolutions of support of the Iraq invasion -- in 2001 and 2002 -- adequate substitutes for the formal declaration of war demanded by the founding fathers."

Interestingly enough, he dismisses both the original Authorization of the Use of Force and the Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq as "feeble," yet no where does he cite what a "declaration" of war is supposed to look like. There is no form letter in the Constitution, where Congress plugs in the name of the country to be attacked and the dates. I would argue that authorizing the President to use the armed forces against another country is, in fact, a declaration of war against that country.

Let's define a few terms, shall we?

Declaration:

1.	the act of declaring; announcement: a declaration of a dividend.

2.	a positive, explicit, or formal statement; proclamation: a declaration of war.

3.	something that is announced, avowed, or proclaimed.

4.	a document embodying or displaying an announcement or proclamation: He posted the declaration in a public place.

So, a "declaration" is a thing; a label. Something can be "declared" I assume, without explicitly labeling it as such.

War:

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.

War is also a label that is applicable when two (or more) countries/nations/tribes are in a state of armed conflict.

So, with respect to Afghanistan, the AUF (2001) authorizes (or you can say "declares that") the President to conduct armed conflict against-- well, let's quote it:

Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Use "all necessary force" against "nations"? Looks, walks and quacks like one to me. I'm no lawyer, but any reasonable person could assume that authorizing the President to use the armed forces to attack another sovereign nation is response to an attack or threat would be... well, a declaration of war.

And as for Iraq, Congress had another debate (which the President didn't think was necessary in light of the initial resolution, but OK) and passed yet another resolution (declaration?) allowing the President to use force-- well, let's quote that, too:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the
exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force
the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter
as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising
such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his
determination that—
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic
or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead
to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

So, the President was, once again, told (declared to?) that he could use force (we can assume the military would be involved) to attack Iraq. In fact, Iraq is mentioned four times after the phrase "authorized to use the Armed forces of the United States." The Congress cited 23 reasons for the President to use force; it passed 77-23 in the Senate, which is as bipartisan as it gets (which circumvents the specious and infantile argument that a Republican President forced a whimpering, robot-like Republican Congress to pass a wimpy resolution granting Bush dictatorial powers.)

Again, the words "declare," "declared," or "declaration" are nowhere to be seen, but it takes a special kind thought process to take the phrase "The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate" and not construe that to mean "war." We may have the luxury of being able to parse words and question phrases, but the men and women on the ground, on both sides, have no doubt about what they are doing, or what it is called.

Which leads me to my conclusion, and hopefully the point of all this. We are a society of wordsmiths and meaning pimps; we are a society that has transformed a "garbage man" into a "sanitation engineer; "disabled" into "differently-abled; "teacher" into "educator," which has since morphed into "facilitator;" a society in which a politician was run out of town on a rail for using the word "niggardly."

Surely "declaration of war" can be changed to "authorization for the use of force," no? I may not agree with it, but it fits the pattern of softening that's so prevalent in today's language-policed society.

A garbage man is still a garbage man. A war is still a war.

Winning Wars?

Yesterday, the New York Times ran an op-ed written by MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK. The two are self-professed critics of the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq War (who can blame them?) and its aftermath. After coming back from an 8 day trip to visit American and Iraqi forces, they found a remarkable thing:

The surge is working.

This is news to people who haven't been listening closely. The plan that the "surge" is using was actually hammered out by General Petraeus (the current commander of MNF-I) while he was commander of the 101st Airborne Division in northern Iraq (Kurd-country) in 2003-2004. The same general plan was used (completely coincidentally-- there's no evidence that Colonel McFarland (CMDR, 1BCT, 1AD) had devised any strategy with General Petraeus prior) to great effect by the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division in Ramadi in the al Anbar province 2005-2006. What was once known as the center of the Sunni and AQI insurgency is now a stable region, where U.S. and Iraqi forces patrol without fear.

My brother, who was Scout platoon leader, battle captain and later S-1 of the 1/35th AR, 2BCT, 1AD (attached to the 1BCT) during the "Anbar Awakening" as it is now rather melodramatically being called, relayed to me an incredible story. He prefaced it by saying that he felt he was present at an historical moment; I'm paraphrasing, so any mistakes or omissions are completely my own, but apparently he and his battalion commander (whose name escapes me at the moment) were going to one of their regular, weekly or so meetings with one of the more powerful local sheiks-- these meetings were usually secret, to protect the sheik from reprisal. They walked into the building where these meetings took place, and were greeted by the sight of not one, but a dozen (or so) sheiks, all powerful men in their areas. The gist of the opening remarks was, "WE want to make a deal with the Americans."

My brother's battalion commander, naturally, said, "Let me get my boss."

The "head" sheik asked my brother's BCT Commander what he needed from the tribes, to which the Americans replied "300 police recruits would be a good start." After some assurances that the police would be used to patrol their own neighborhoods, the 2 parties shook hands and went home.

The next day there were 1,000 new Iraqi Police recruits lined up outside the main Ramadi Station.

Wars are won and lost based on how quickly the participants learn from there mistakes. The "small footprint" approach advocated by Generals Abezaid and Pace were, in hindsight, completely ineffective in fighting a counter-insurgent campaign. Counter-insurgency starts with "winning the hearts and minds" and you start winning the hearts and minds by a.) moving among and living with the people whose hearts you are trying to win and b.) providing security for those people.

The Sunni-based, AQI-led insurgency was able to maintain control of the population through intimidation and murder. We would strike and leave, allowing the insurgents to fill the vacuum left by us. Now, we have learned from our mistakes. We strike hard and stay, building COPs or "Combat Outposts" (imagine the stockaded forts of the Old West and "F-Troop" fame.) We patrol with increasingly brave, increasingly competent Iraqi Security Forces, we are pushing hard, on multiple fronts, never resting, never letting the enemy rest...

The AQI-led insurgents (there are very few Sunni-led insurgents at this point in time) haven't learned. They are still trying to intimidate the local populations with bombings and murders and kidnapings.

The most important thing to remember about winning wars is that one side has to lose. It is as important to say, loud, long and clear that the AQI-led insurgency is losing as it is to say that we and our allies are winning. In fact, it is important to say that AQI was never in a position to win; they could only win if we defaulted and left the field-- even a high school football team can win a game against the Indianapolis Colts, if the Indianapolis Colts leave midway through the second quarter.

I say "bravo" to those 2 brave reporters. They undoubtedly are going to be viciously attacked in the coming weeks. Thanks for putting out there what some of us already knew...

Fridays: A Gift Of Western Civilization

We've all heard it before, the old cliche' "Thank God It's Friday." When I was young, being raised as a nominal Catholic, I used to think it was because grown-ups liked halibut night (note to non-Catholics: Catholics/Christians were not supposed to eat meat on Fridays back in the day; some still follow that idea, but only during Lent, which is why you will see fish meals pop up on fast-food menus around March of every year--CG.)

But now that I am older, and have to actually work for a living, I understand the true meaning of Friday: it is the last day in a week of drudgery and toil, the final day that you have to deal with bosses, customers, purchase orders, sales reports, intra-office memos, faulty equipment, and lazy coworkers-- in 8 short hours, we will get our reward, 2 full days of blissful repose and serene contemplation of the good things in life.

But to what do we owe the joy of the weekend? Well, first and foremost, we owe Friday to the oft-maligned practice of remembering the Sabbath and keeping it Holy-- those pesky Judeo-Christian values that are so out of vogue today. The Sabbath should be (and is, for Jews and smaller Christian sects) Saturday, the final day of the week, the day even God had to use to fire up the grill and forget about the hard week's work He had just put in, what with Creation and all that. Takes a lot out of a deity, especially when there's only One of him doing all the work. Sure, it makes the org. chart more readable, but when you mess around and make something like the duck-billed platypus, there's no one else to blame.

So, the Jewish religion was really the first organization to mandate a 6-day work week, and "T.G.I.F." was meant literally in Jewish communities.

Reviving the Dead

As I type this, I realize it has been months since I last visited these august posts-- if anyone reads this, I apologize. Things got hectic. I got busy. The dog ate my homework.

As I revive this dead blog, I realize that many things, long forgotten and thought dead, have come back; in celebration of my revival, I thought I'd post a few others:

Al Gore. Remember him? He was the stodgy old VP for America's first rock and roll president. Then he was humiliated loser of a presidential election (that was handed to him on a silver platter.) Now he is... savior of the world. Nobel Peace Prize laureate. Academy Award winner. The climate absolutely has to be changing, and it has to be man's fault, because if it isn't, Al Gore has to go back to his Tennessee mansion and stew the years away in obscurity...

The Viet Nam War. Well, it's ghost has been raised, anyway, being used to frighten the children. It's shadow covers the Battle for Iraq, even if the fit isn't perfect. Viet Nam vets are suddenly all the rage, after being marginalized and forgotten for 35 years. Viet Nam war protesters are quite popular, too, even though the consequences of their success 35 years ago are, in large part, ignored-- because what happened in the aftermath of our pullout of Viet Nam is eerily similar to what people are saying will happen when we pull out of Iraq, and that wasn't pretty, either.

"Water"gate. Or rather the appearance of it. Everything is a "gate." Come to think of it, Watergate wasn't revived, it's been kept on life support and trotted out every time some minor political official violates a statute. This one should be laid to rest, finally.

Jimmy Carter. It doesn't seem to matter how many times we stab this hateful, anti-semitic vampire in the chest with a wooden stake, he reappears, dragging himself upright and somehow adding to a veneer of respectability the Habitat for Humanity has given him. Ol' Jimmy may be revived, but methinks the villagers are closing in, with pitchforks and torches...

And finally, but most importantly, socialism is pulling itself up from the Stygian Pit it was cast into with the fall of Communism. It is taking root small places, the corners of the gardens of capitalism, but it is persistent and tough to kill. Health care, schools, agriculture, the environment and Berkeley has all succumbed, or are going to succumb, to it's lie of "fairness" for all. Socialism appeals to the simple child in all of us; play nice, share your toys, take turns, all done while being watched over by a doting, protective mother and a stern (but fair) father. Who doesn't wish that they were a child again, when you didn't have to pay for anything and someone was always looking out for you?

Well, I hope that my revival doesn't signify the Coming of the End, but if it does, or if it's coincidental to it, at least I will be able to pull up a chair, drink a beer, and laugh at the folly of it all.

Writing sardonic posts about it on the Internet is just icing on the cake.