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.
