There is an interesting dimension to the ongoing circumvention of the Constitution over our latest undeclared war. While some Administration officials are finally calling our attacks in Syria as a “war,” the discomfort over defining this indefinite campaign has led to equal discomfort over naming it. After two months of airstrikes and statements that the campaign will likely go on for years, the Administration still have not named this war. The choice would now seem obvious: Operation Voldemort, the war which must not be named.
Usually, the military loves to give inspiring names to its campaigns, though sometimes the name can reveal a bit of insecurity like “Operation Just Cause” in Panama — a name that only seemed to amplify the questions of the legality or legitimacy of the invasion. Once coined, the name then appears on everything from government contracts to legislation to service medals.
However, the Administration has been in a not-so-private internal debate over what to call the campaign against Islamic State. Like naming a puppy, the naming of a war can create a dangerous achievement to those with commitment issues. As one defense official was quoted as saying “If you name it, you own it. And they don’t want to own it.”
For the moment, Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby says that the Administration currently has “no plans to name the operation” but that there is “an effort underway to consider … a potential name for this operation.”
They may have time. Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said this week that this could be a “30-year war.” At least the 100 years war between England and France had a name, it was called the 100 years war. You do not even have to be accurate. After all, the 100 Years war lasted 116 years.
Whatever its name, it has its first casualty. Marine Cpl. Jordan Spears was lost at sea after he and another crewman abandoned their MV-22 Osprey when it nearly crashed into the Persian Gulf. They had taken off from the USS Makin Island. For the moment, he will presumably be listed as killed in military operations.
Source: Wall Street Journal
This war is a war against Islam. Not started by us but by a group of Muslims declaring the _Islamic_ State In Syria.
It is a religious war.
They are killing anyone and everyone who is not a Muslim first. Then suppress competing sects.
It is a religious war and they have declared me and my country to be their greatest enemy.
They seem to have the motto: Convert or Die.
Very well, sauce for the gander is to adopt as our motto: Give up your religion or die.
The Islamic War is underway.
I just did a spit take of my coffee. Jimmy Carter is criticizing Obama on ignoring ISIS. You can’t make this stuff up! Imagine the derision and expletives in the West Wing this morning.
Nick – when you lose Jimmy Carter, who is left? Valerie Jarrett?
Right On Eric.
I am finding increasing plausible merit in the study of the sociology of religion, and, for me, a good starting place is Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life,, Joseph Ward Swain, tr., George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., 1915.
With the work of Emile Durkheim, Thomas Luckmann, Peter Berger, and other “sociologists of religion” as background, a book, by Carolyn Marvin and David W. Ingle, Blood Sacrifice and the Nation: Totem Rituals and the American Flag (Cambridge Cultural Social Studies), Cambridge University Press, 1999, may have useful relevance to this blog thread.
To what extent is “no one is above the law,” a totem of a secular religion?
To what extent is war evidence that the United States of America is a nation founded and made of a blood sacrifice religion, as Marvin and Ingle have written?
is that translation of Durkheim’s work, now in the public domain, akin to a primary source regarding totemic religions, such as, methinks, the Anglo-American Adversarial System of Law and Jurisprudence?
Paul C. Schulte: “Eric is the goto guy for war authorizations.”
The law and policy I’ve cited for the Iraq mission and the President’s counter-terror authority are open source, not especially esoteric, and nowadays on-line.
I get why lay people might uncritically rely on secondary and tertiary sources and pundits. I don’t get why history, political science, and most of all legal scholars don’t go to primary sources that are within reach of a free and easy internet search.
Eric – I know that you will dig it all out for me. Thanks. 🙂
Add: In my last comment, I left out the key piece of my answer to Barkindog’s question.
The President’s military purview is not limited to sovereign war. Neither is Congress’ military purview limited to declarations of (sovereign) war.
BarkinDog: “Perhaps some folks would wish to have an up or down vote in Congress on Declaring War on The Islamic State. This would presume that The Islamic State is indeed a nation state. Can the fellow bloggers chime in on that question?”
See the War Powers Resolution ( http://www.loc.gov/law/help/war-powers.php ). It was passed in the wake of the Vietnam War and attempts to address the tension raised by modern demands of executive military application and legislative oversight of that application.
The WPR itself is unsettled with the Presidential position that the WPR is an infringement of Constitutional executive authority. While Presidents have generally abided by the WPR’s reporting and consultation guidelines, albeit selectively and to varying degrees, they have done so as a courtesy, not a mandate, while mindful of Congress’ military duties and powers.
However, Professor Turley goes further than merely criticizing President Obama’s communication or lack thereof with Congress per the WPR. He contends that Obama’s anti-ISIS strikes so far are a unilateral Executive action without basis in Constitutional and legislative authority – which is demonstrably not true.
Can Congress pass new legislation specific to the counter-ISIS operations in addition to the President’s standing counter-terror authority? Sure it can, and there are intelligible political reasons to do so.
Contra Professor Turley’s contention, however, it’s not legally necessary for Congress to pass new legislation for the President to counter ISIS. Obama’s anti-ISIS strikes so far are already based in Constitutional and legislative authority.
* How do you come to the 6 weeks estimate?
traveling limey: “This war could and should be won in 6 weeks.”
How you come to the 6 weeks estimate?
Regarding your general point about a decisive action v ISIS, that would require a dedicated plan with a full, even granular commitment of ground forces. If the US doesn’t take the lead on that action, it’s not going to happen.
This war could and should be won in 6 weeks. I said much of this in an earlier comment but unfortunately used the word b*st**ds along with Illuminati. It got me ‘moderation’ stated but was trashed & not moderated, else it would show up with the b**t**ds word removed. Yes, Paul, I have no judgement whatsoever on illegitimacy as regards children. The word simply means *&%$#! in a not nice way, today in the west.
Heck, this is the first justification we have had for actually getting into Iraq, boots on the ground or planes in the sky. I see no reason not to get our Congress involved. They aren’t doing anything else but bicker. I do see a planned ‘1984’ type situation here where the War on Terror is designed to produce more terrorists to fight, especially when Obama sheepishly tells us the Illuminati wants this war to last for years. Eric will have trouble seeing where I got that from as he has not learned or refuses too ever read between the lines, such an appologist for our rotten establishment he is.
War On Thugs.
I say we should name the war Operation Really Big War!
Also “Operation IS not” works.
I have an alternate name in case they don’t like that one: Operation Denial.
Deny we are at war with people we deny we are at war with, against something we deny is the problem….in a place we denied would be a problem. At war with our denials.
And if you think that the Islamic State is indeed a nation state then what are the respective boundaries and what is the status of the so called nation states where ISIS is located? The question arises as to whether Syria, Iraq, et al are just Pirate Territories.
Perhaps some folks would wish to have an up or down vote in Congress on Declaring War on The Islamic State. This would presume that The Islamic State is indeed a nation state. Can the fellow bloggers chime in on that question? I happen to be a citizen of Cardinal Nation so you may know my thoughts on what constitutes a so called nation state. I also shop at National Food Store and so the word gets bandied about.
Is killing farm workers part of our International treaties?
Or wedding parties?
Endless war… Empire depends upon it. That is all.