[lotuseclat79]

Simply, wars cost too much in terms of lives, wasted resources and time.

Wars (should, may, must never) only ever be fought as a last resort when there is no other alternative to diplomacy to resolve a dispute. And, if the legislature or parliment (in the case of the USA it is Congress), holds the power to declare war, unless an attack is imminent against the soverign nation, it should never, ever relinquish that power.

Another question is:

Should such an amendment be written into the Constitution? Clearly, our founding forefathers never anticipated that Congress would take a stand to relinqush this power which was never intended as an Executive power.

The amendment would not prevent, for instance, the POTUS (as CIC of the Armed Services) from defending the USA from a missile attack by lauching a defensive barrier against it to destroy incoming missiles in the stratosphere before reentering the atmosphere or other means to stop the attack from succeeding.

A retaliatory counter attack, on the other hand, must rest on both the hard evidence that a foreign or other power has launched against our nation and the wisdom of such a counter stike, and the Congress would at least need to be consulted unless the evidence were already known to be true rather than false and the identity of that power is known without any doubts.

Just try getting an Administration and the Pentagon and the Intelligence Services to agree on any one strategy and Congress to foot the bill, eh?

So, the real question is how to have a government that does not lie to its people with regard to starting wars on specious evidence, while being able to defend its citizens from attack, and not react to an attack in a constipated manner when and if so attacked.

-- Tom

 

[WarC]

That is a very modern idea. That offensive wars are a last resort.

In actuality every war is fought for control of resources of one type or another. Most offensive wars therefore can be defined as trying to "protect" that country. The line between offensive and defensive war is thin, and makes an offensive war the more profitable and worthwhile venture. Which is counter to your idea that offensive wars are worthless and defensive wars are the only necessity. In a purely defensive war you have everything to lose and nothing to gain, in that situation a country is simply trying to survive as opposed to trying to gain the upper hand in an arena that does not significantly effect its "home field", to put it in sporting terms. Being on the offense is where you want to be, this is true in practically every war, competition, and sport there is. It is why Robert E. Lee invaded the North during the Civil War despite the fact that all the South really had to do initially was survive. Lee knew that an effective offense on the South's part could have more quickly brought about an end to the war that not only ensured the South's survival, but ended the war on terms favorable to them. That is just one example. Practically every war fought could serve as an example.

Now thats not to say that I don't think this country should adopt a policy of defensive war only. More often than not I am of the mind that this country should be fairly isolationist.

Its just that the idea of offensive war being a losing situation that should not be supported on priniciple is a fallacy. Offensive wars are, more often than not, simply defensive wars fought outside the country defending itself - making it the better choice.

 

[WarC]

For better or worse this is why American involvement in the Middle East is so heavy.

9/11 opened a door to American military and political leadership that allowed us to engage known and standing enemies in an arena that would not expose American citizenry or American allies to danger. Our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq essentially are defensive in nature, and is meant in a purely strategic sense as a way to keep this country safe while simultaneously watching out for our economic interests - something that not only helps "the suits", but has a trickle down effect for every American. It is better for the war to continue in this way instead of in a purely defensive stance where the American military is simply reacting to attacks at home.

Every other facet of our involvement there away from terrorism (WMD's, liberation from dictatorship, etc) is simply second-string to that primary goal...Even in Iraq.

The by-product of that intervention, nation-building via democracy and increased civil liberties, is just that...a by-product. It is not a necessity in the least and that is actually the part that costs us the most in terms of money and time.

That last aspect of our involvement there is particular to Americans when it comes to fighting wars. Thats why it is a worthwhile venture and something we should pursue if we mean to show people that we come in good faith. It is a PR thing.

That is why I view the discord over the war as an extremely negative thing, even more negative than the war itself...which was more or less a necessity unless we decided to completely abandon Israel or put up with continued attacks at home.

In other words, the wars we are fighting by themselves we are fighting as a matter of necessity already...The way we choose to fight it is where the gray area is.