Who did the U.S declare war on?

[civverguy]

When America went to war in Iraq, are they at war with Saddam's regime or just Iraq in general.

 

[Nylan]

grammar aside, should this be OT?

Historically though, we went to war with the former government of Iraq

...but this is an opinion-based question

 

[DaveShack]

Technically we didn't declare war with anyone. A declaration of war is a specific kind of document in international law, which in the United States can only be initiated as an act of Congress. WWII was the last actual declaration of war by the US.

 

[civverguy]

Sorry if I misunderstood the definition. My real question is who is
America at war with in Iraq right now?

 

[Nylan]

Technically we didn't declare war with anyone. A declaration of war is a specific kind of document in international law, which in the United States can only be initiated as an act of Congress. WWII was the last actual declaration of war by the US.

good point

although executive action seems to hold the same weight nowadays

 

[Plotinus]

I don't think that "we" went to war with anyone, unless anyone posting here is actually a member of the government of any of the coalition countries...

As for who they are at war with in Iraq right now, the answer is no-one, because wars are conducted between countries. US soldiers are fighting many individuals but no country. The problem is that George Bush uses the word "war" to mean things that aren't really wars, such as the "war on terror". But that is no more an actual war than the "war on drugs" is really a war. The word is being used metaphorically. Of course it can be hard to tell the difference when there are soldiers involved and lots of people are being killed. But most of the killing in Iraq right now is being happening between different groups of Iraqis; it is a sort of massive turf war, and again it is hard to know whether that is really technically a war or not. The Americans are basically caught in the middle of this.

 

[Adler17]

From a juristical point of view the US did not lead any wars since 1945 as therefore a certain declaration is needed. However this is in someway debated as still "wars" were fought in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan (and a few smaller ones). This makes the old juristical definition of war outdated. As declaring war has some consequences the belligerent parties might want to avoid, in international law, this was not done by the US since 1945 (as an example: Some Serbian soldiers deserted at the Macedonian border and wanted to become PoW in the US and Germany resp. in the Kosovo war. As neither the US nor Germany did declare war on Serbia it was not clear what these soldiers were now, nor if the forces had any rights to take PoW! I do not remember the outcome of that discussion). However in how far these rules have to be kept analogous is still debated.

Adler

 

[Plotinus]

I think it has to be admitted that there's something rather odd about having laws about wars in the first place, and rules about what you're allowed to do in wars, as if it's some kind of sport...

 

[Adler17]

Well it was seen as a kind of sports after the 30 years war. Because of preventing such a war again, certain rules were made. All in all that worked until ww2 and the Barbarians there (SS, NKWD, Harris to name a few).

Adler

 

[Illdisposed]

The Americans are basically caught in the middle of this.

The Americans have basically unleashed this.

 

[Maimonides]

The Americans have basically unleashed this.

The Sunnis, Shi'ites & Kurds in Iraq have been fighting each other for centuries. The oppressive Bath government kept this under control, but in it's absence the old fight has flared back up again. The new government doesn't have the political will or military strength to control it. The political will is quickly shrinking in the U.S., also.

Keep in mind that most Americans oppose their current President's policies.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Indeed. Iraq was an artificial political creation by the British, after they took over the area fr the Ottomans in the aftermath of WW1 IIRC and merged the 3 Ottoman provinces in the region into one 'mandate'.

Even back then, the Brits had problems with the natives.

 

[Plotinus]

Keep in mind that most Americans oppose their current President's policies.

Only because they're not working, though. I don't get the impression that the war in Iraq would have been unpopular had it been successful. In other countries, by contrast, going to war at all was desperately unpopular, even on the assumption that victory would be easy.

 

[Greeneyedzombie]

the americans didn't declare war, so they don't have to abide to american and international rules, and thus can basicaly do what they want.

 

[Verbose]

War or no war, the US has signed a bunch of international agreements saying they will abide by lots of things. Some of which the present admin. found it too onerous to honour.

 

[Idlenessss]

no the fact is, America, including a congressional vote, did make an official complaint and an official declaration of war, based on Husseins failure to comply with some 10-15 resolutions defined by the UN, many of which involved terms of capitulation from the prior gulf war. If you review these resolutions they actually appear quite reasonable...and they do NOT necessitate the actual existence, per se, of WMD in Iraq, or other rhetoric. However, what the US is doing in Iraq NOW, is more of a mystery, we seem to be fighting the possibility of something happening, or something, its bizarre, and I dont udnerstand it, and neither, apparently, does congresss. So probably its not going to last much longer.
But this is fascinating to me, that so many people are saying that we didnt declare war. Totally false. There was an absolutely official declararion, which included congress, and abiding by all rules concerning how the US declares war, executed smoothly, due to its practically unanimous approval in congress. Get this straight.
an 'executive action' has verbatim no meaning in US politics, there is such thing as an 'executive order'...but it in enirely UNLAWFUL in the US for the president to declare war without the approval of congress...and executive order can NOT trump this, this is not a vague thing open to interpretation.
However, it HAS happened, now and then, that presidents completely personally decide to go to war (even after this law was made explicit), and fascinating how it has not ever been actually punished, althought plenty gripe about its some generations later. GW Bush did not do this however. U can hate this war all you want, but its still very much a fact, GW did involve the US and in fact the UN in th entire decision to go to war, he faced some opposition in the UN, but not much (after all his justification was based, officially, SOLELY on explicit UN resolutions). The simple fact is that at the time, everybody thought this was a great idea. Hindsight is 20/20.

 

[Idlenessss]

I dont think peopel have been objective at all on this issue. I remember stuff. And i reember when GW 1st took office, he was no warmonger. In fact he was clearly working to drastically decrease the size of the US military, which many seemed to think ahd lost its point, with no emminent enemy in sight. He was conservative, but he was a rather moderate conservative, and democrats were a little confused about how to be opposed to him. All this changed at 9/11. Admittedly, a lot of people reacted a little emotionally to this event, but who wouldnt??? Perfectly otherwise objective people I knew, had seen on the media palestinian children applauding the tragedy, and actually took a kill them all mentality. So suddenly it became perfectly clear the the near east was actually more dangerous than everyone realized. Now assuming we can disgregard, (and frankly we can disregard this comical idea) that 9/11 wasnt some elaborate hoax from some top secret executive people, everything that followed was quite natural and logical. Iraq might not be directly related to Osama, but it was perceived as the greatest military power in the near east, and the best way to change the demeaner of people in the middle east toward the US, I suppose it was an idea. And meanwhile what else did GW do?? he put effort into allowing the palestenians their own state, negotiating with Israel their retreat from the Gaza strip. mmkay? and oh brother... who did the palestenians elect? and how could that expect to assist the diplomacy in this situation? Well anyway, the whole story is not one of some black and white US imperialism. Is GW one of the greatest presidents of US history? no. a lot of his clever ideas have seriously boomeranged and hes lookign pretty stupid right now. But is he this Adolf Hitleresque tyrant that many people are straining to make him? no. simply, no. Stop trying to make your life so dramatic, there is obviously nothing very suprising here. typical understandible mistakes of non-evil, but non-messianic-level-genius people.

 

[Plotinus]

GW did involve the US and in fact the UN in th entire decision to go to war, he faced some opposition in the UN, but not much (after all his justification was based, officially, SOLELY on explicit UN resolutions). The simple fact is that at the time, everybody thought this was a great idea. Hindsight is 20/20.

What on earth do you mean? Bush didn't involve the UN at all. There was no "second resolution" on how to deal with the fact that Iraq had ignored the previous resolutions. It was Blair, not Bush, who desperately wanted a UN mandate to go to war; and when it became obvious that any vote on such a proposal would be lost, because the other countries would veto it, Bush and Blair simply cancelled the vote. Yes, the justification for going to war was indeed that Iraq had been defying the will of the UN, but Bush did not have (and, unlike Blair, didn't seem particularly bothered about getting) any mandate from the UN to handle this fact by going to war. I don't know about people in America, but most people elsewhere thought going to war was a very bad idea, and that is why Bush and Blair couldn't even have a vote on it at the UN, far less win one.

Perfectly otherwise objective people I knew, had seen on the media palestinian children applauding the tragedy, and actually took a kill them all mentality. So suddenly it became perfectly clear the the near east was actually more dangerous than everyone realized... Iraq might not be directly related to Osama, but it was perceived as the greatest military power in the near east, and the best way to change the demeaner of people in the middle east toward the US, I suppose it was an idea.

If that's really how Bush, or other people in the US, were thinking, then it was "black and white imperialism", or perhaps "Hitleresque tyranny", or even just basic old-fashioned stupidity. Do you really suppose Bush thought that by invading a Middle Eastern country he would make people from the Middle East like America more? I don't believe that even Bush is that stupid. I also think that even Bush is capable of distinguishing between different countries and realising that, although on a world map Iraq might be fairly close to Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, it's actually a completely different place. Suppose that a Mexican terrorist committed some outrage in China; would the Chinese be reasonable to retaliate by attacking the US? According to the reasoning you attribute to Bush, this would be reasonable, because North America would have been revealed to be a problem, and it should be dealt with by attacking the most powerful country in North America.

 

[REDY]

I think that Iraq was invaded because control of Iran. But there are many theories... anyway the succes of any is not visible....

 

[Verbose]

he put effort into allowing the palestenians their own state, negotiating with Israel their retreat from the Gaza strip.

The GWB admin have so far done diddly squat about the Israel-Palestine conflict. At least give the Israelis the credit they are due on this one.