Sign up for a free recipe e-book →

Clarissa's Blog

Illegal War

Published by

Clarissa

on

There are so many stupid expressions that stupid people stupidly use. Work-life balance is my all-time favorite in terms of its sheer stupidity. But there are others.

Example: illegal war. All of the idiots who keep chirping about “Obama’s illegal war on ISIS” avoid referring to “Bush’s legal war on Iraq.” If there is illegal war, it stands to reason that there should be discussions of legal wars, but where are these discussions?

Also, it’s quite hypocritical to talk of “Obama’s illegal war in Syria” in which all of 50 US ground troops are involved while there was a flat-out refusal to refer to “Putin’s illegal war against Ukraine” when thousands of Russian ground troops were fighting on Ukrainian soil.

All of this idiotic twaddle about “Obama’s illegal wars” (because they are never anybody else’s but Obama’s for some reason) is inspired by nothing other than an infantile resentment that Obama hasn’t adopted Pat Buchanan’s deranged belief in the need for complete isolationism for the US.

11 responses to “Illegal War”

  1. Dreidel Avatar
    Dreidel

    It’s always been a bit bemusing how Buchanan calls himself a strict conservative, yet has always had a “blame America first” view of foreign policy. His pro-Russian, anti-Israel views could come straight out of “The Nation” or “Slate.com” — NATO is the aggressor in Europe, forcing Putin’s hand, and all of Israel’s restrained efforts at self-defense are brutal oppression.

    He actually wrote a book stating that WWII could have been avoided if the Western Allies had just let Hitler keep Poland.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      Actually, every single time I leaf through my blogroll and come across one of his articles, the very first thing I think is, “Ah, The Nation again!” Because as you say, they are like an echo of each other.

      Like

      Reply
  2. David P. Bellamy Avatar
    David P. Bellamy

    “Illegal war” in terms of U. S. law means any war not declared by Congress.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Dreidel Avatar
      Dreidel

      There have been multiple instances in U.S. history, staring in the late 1700s and continuing into the 21st century, when Congress has authorized “extended military engagements” against assorted combatants, and in general these actions have been considered legal and constitutional. (Some constitutional scholars have disagreed.)

      Like

      Reply
    2. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      I know. But have you noticed that nobody says, “Bush’s legal war on Iraq”?

      Like

      Reply
      1. Dreidel Avatar
        Dreidel

        That’s because the war was incompetently fought and everyone is unhappy about the outcome. But even Hillary admits that it was legal.

        “The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, Pub.L. 107–243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243.”

        Like

        Reply
        1. Clarissa Avatar
          Clarissa

          I’m not even talking about politics here. I’m strictly on the linguistic usage. People repeat these clichés unthinkingly without ever stopping to question them. Does the opposition to the war on ISIS really stem from its lack of Congress approval? Really? And if Congress did approve it, like it did with the war in Iraq, then opposition to the war would cease? Really?

          Like

          Reply
          1. Dreidel Avatar
            Dreidel

            Very few Americans really care about the linguistics of war or about the details of congressional approval, which they see as an abstraction that’s of interest mainly to academics and legal scholars.

            The few Americans who currently believe that decisive military action needs to be taken against ISIS are willing to assume that the Congressional authorizations passed since 9/11 give Obama all the authority he needs.

            The majority of Americans who don’t want to take strong military action at this point are simply tired of supporting prolonged LOSING wars — the legalities of it all aren’t their concern. (If they became convinced that this was an existential, necessary war, and that we would therefore actually fight to win it quickly, they’d support whatever action the President took.)

            Like

            Reply
        2. Dreidel Avatar
          Dreidel

          Since the expected stockpiles of WMD weren’t found in Iraq, some prominent writers (notably Andrew Sullivan) have claimed that the U.S. government deliberately “lied” about the reason for going to war, and therefore officials like Cheney and Rumsfeld are war criminals who should be prosecuted.

          Less hysterical observers (even Jeb Bush) now simply say that the war was a “mistake” — but they say that only because we LOST.

          Old saying: “War is always right if you’re the winner.”

          Like

          Reply
          1. Clarissa Avatar
            Clarissa

            Because of that stupid war, the US could do nothing for Ukraine in the war with Russia.

            Like

            Reply
  3. Sternococktail Avatar
    Sternococktail

    To whom, which or what should the Congress declare war on? The laws written hundreds of years ago are no prophecies. The people back then would have regarded DAESH (the name they hate) or IS, ISIL. ISIS as a band of criminals, and you don’t have to declare war on criminals – the medias’ headlines of “war on crime” is a metaphor like “moral crusade”. ~~~ The “meddling” by the USA in Europe – in the 19th century the US Navy twice sent the battle fleet, “old ironsides” (but they were still made of oak wood) over to the Mediterranean Sea and bombarded the mega pirates’ nests along the north coast of Africa. The so called Barbary states had been disrupting shipping for centuries, taking more than a million (sic!) Europeans as slaves – raiding the coasts of Europe and even kidnapping people as far north as Iceland! ~~~ So, that was the first meddling – then the US joined the WW1, tipping the balance. If not – it is possible that Europe still would consists of large empires – the German, Austria-Hungary and tsarist Russia. That could mean no Communists! 🙂 ~~~ The meddling in WW2 saved us Swedes from being a province in the Third Reich – and greeting swastika flags with the roman salute… Reichsprotektorat Schweden? Gau Skandinavien?

    The mega famous aviator Charles Lindbergh – of Swedish ancestry – did his best to keep the US out of the WW2. But the Empire of Japan had other plans, so maybe I should thank the Japanese for still speaking Swedish? As far as I know, Lindbergh changed his views and volunteered in the war. ~~~ Another famous non-interventionist was the king of England – Edward VIII – or still then King of the United Kingdom and the Dominions of the British Empire, and Emperor of India, from 20 January 1936 until his abdication on 11 December the same year. About the abdication – cherchez la femme! But as Edward was a fan of Adolf Hitler, actually meeting him in 1937 – Mrs. Wallace Simpson and her sexual power might have saved Europe from being transformed into the dystopian super-state Germania?

    Jokes and chat aside – the DAESH is worse than the Nazi SS Einsatzgruppen in many respects (not in the number of victims, of course) – I have studied the WW2 on and off, but I have for instance never found any evidence that the SS troops would have gangraped groups of children before their parents, and then cutting off their heads. And so on. I have dozens of terrible pictures stored, pictures that the “Holy Warriors” took themselves for bragging and for souvenirs.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment

A conservative literary critic and college professor

Recent posts