[LoBlo]

Originally Posted by Platapus

One thing to keep in mind is that the term "war" has at least three separate meanings.

1. War is a legal state. In the US only congress can declare war. War, in this context is a dichotomous state. The US is either in a state of war, or it ain't. There are many laws that will change when the country is in a legal state of war. This is one of the many reasons why the US has not declared a legal state of war since 1942 when we declared war on Romania.

2. War is a practical state. When people of an opposing country's military are shootin at you, you is in a war. While legally Vietnam and Korea were not declared wars, ask anyone who was over there and they will rightfully consider themselves in a war. Bullets hurt just as bad in a war as they do in a police action.

3. War is a state of national intention. I don't like this meaning, but it is common. War against poverty, war against drugs, war against terrorism, war against ... all indicate, or attempt to indicate some level of national intent. But legally it has no standing unless separate legislation is enacted by congress.

Then we have Operations Other Than War (OOTW) which is just like it reads. It is shootin at people without a formal declaration of war. Usually such euphemistic terms as "authorized military action" are used. The key to OOTW is whether congress authorizes funding. Sometimes they do and some times they don't.

The first gulf war, the military conflict in Afghanistan, and the invasion of Iraq are all versions of OOTW.

Then we have types of OOTW that are authorized by extra-US governing bodies but still funded by congress. Bosnia, and Haiti as well as Korea are examples of the US being involved in OOTW where the initial authorization came from outside the US but the activities were approved (either formally or de facto) by congressional funding of these OOTW activities.

Finally, there is the messiest type of OOTW - Those authorized by the President of the United States and not approved (either formally or defacto) by Congress. The longest "war" the United States was involved in was a war lasting almost 50 years against some Indian nations. Through out the 19th century and the start of the 20th century the POTUS has played fast and loose with his authority to command the military.

Things, unfortunately, were not made clearer with congress signing the War Powers Act of 1973. Every president since that year has made official statements proclaiming that the president is not bound by the War Powers Act. So far, congress has never taken issue with this to the Supreme Court. So the ability of the president to get the US into a war is fuzzy with significant disagreement between the Executive and Legislative branches. It would be very interesting to see how the Supreme Court would rule on this. I guess either side is afraid of pressing the matter in case the court decides against their opinion.


More then you probably wanted to know about war. huh. good god yall. What is it good for?

For clarity, those predicaments are generally applicable to the USA's political and legal fubar'dness in regards to military conflicts and not necessarily the rest of the world. I guess war as a 'military backed state of intent' rather or not in line with any specific countries legal protocols is the most inclusive definition I can think of off hand.