by Greg Krehbiel on 13 April 2017
I was discussing international politics and such with somebody who knows way more than I do on the subject. I said I don’t like this idea that Trump can just cast bombs here and there without a declaration of war, and somewhere in the discussion I said something to the effect that every country has a right to declare war.
That seems obvious to me. How could they not?
My friend said the U.N. charter doesn’t allow it. Countries aren’t supposed to “declare war” any more.
Apparently that’s why we now have “kinetic actions” and “authorizations for use of military force” (AUMF) and other silly euphemisms. Just today, IMO, we see one of the problems with this bastardization of language and politics.
(I’m decently well informed, but I’m not positive I have all my details right in this post. Please correct me as necessary.)
Congress authorized military force against Afghanistan. Apparently with no expiration date. We have a perpetual “authorization for use of military force” in place. So … the president has a blank check and can drop a bomb over there whenever he thinks it’s warranted.
I’m making no judgment about whether today’s strike with MOAB — the mother of all bombs — was a good idea or not. I don’t have nearly enough information to know. Generally speaking I’m glad when we blow Al Qaeda, ISIS and other miscreants to Kingdom Come whenever we have a chance. But there are other considerations.
I don’t like the modern (cowardly) approach to military action.
If we’re going to war, Congress should declare war. That declaration should set clear objectives and terms for when the war is over — including ways for our adversary to admit defeat and sue for peace.
This mealy mouthed business we engage in today is not an improvement.
2017-04-13 » Greg Krehbiel