PDA

View Full Version : Why not declare war?


goat
05-23-2004, 04:05
Is there a reason that the United States has not formally declared a war against terrorism?

If we had made a declaration of war after September 11th. Would public support still be in decline?



THE DECLARATION OF WAR: ONE FOR THE HISTORY BOOKS?


THESIS STATEMENT: The declaration of war, while originally
thought of as the preferred option in justifying the use of
U.S. forces, is, in reality, a seldom-used concept that will
become increasingly difficult to enact with the passage of
the War Powers Resolution (WPR) and our recent success in
Southwest Asia.

I. Declaration of War Rarely Used in American History
A. Disparity between declared and undeclared wars
B. War of 1812
C. The Mexican War
D. The Spanish-American War
E. World War I
F. World War 11

II. Similarities of All Five Declared Wars
A. All declared wars were "popular" wars
B. All involved a strong incident to declare war
C. 80% involved blind Congressional support

III. The War Powers Resolution (WPR) of 1973
A. Basis for debate on war powers
B. Key elements of the WPR
C. Opinions on the WPR

IV. Role of Declaration of War in Modern Warfare
A. Declaration supports rare, unlikely type of war
B. Description of the modern war
C. Need for public support
Link to the rest of the paper. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1991/BJL.htm)

NousDefionsDoc
05-23-2004, 08:41
I think because a declaration limits options

Also, if I'm not mistaken, since Congress declares it, Congress could also declare it over and the troops would have to come home.


I also don't think you could ever get Congress to agree on scope or opening a new front.

Could be wrong.

QRQ 30
05-23-2004, 08:58
Originally posted by goat
Is there a reason that the United States has not formally declared a war against terrorism?

If we had made a declaration of war after September 11th. Would public support still be in decline?


Link to the rest of the paper. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1991/BJL.htm)

!1. To answer a question with a question: How does one declare war against "terrorism"? Where is the capital? Who is the head of state? Which country do they represent The declared wars cited were against nations: France, Spain, Mexico, Germany and Japan.

2. I'm not a lawyer but since the questioner asked the question he is using some precise, legalistic definition od "War". We are de facto at war. It is said over and over that "this is war".

3. I don't see how the resolve of the american citizenry could have been much stronger than it was on 9/12. The problem is the staying power. The difference is media. If you can gain access to movies, cartoons and written media of the forties you will see that the enemy was always portrayed as ignorant, barbarian monsters and only stories of heroism appeared about our forces.

How things have changed!!.

NousDefionsDoc
05-23-2004, 09:02
Be nice to have a Constitutional scholar as a member. RL!!!! Recruiting trip!!!

goat
05-23-2004, 11:44
Originally posted by QRQ 30
!1. To answer a question with a question: How does one declare war against "terrorism"? Where is the capital? Who is the head of state? Which country do they represent The declared wars cited were against nations: France, Spain, Mexico, Germany and Japan.

2. I'm not a lawyer but since the questioner asked the question he is using some precise, legalistic definition od "War". We are de facto at war. It is said over and over that "this is war".

3. I don't see how the resolve of the american citizenry could have been much stronger than it was on 9/12. The problem is the staying power. The difference is media. If you can gain access to movies, cartoons and written media of the forties you will see that the enemy was always portrayed as ignorant, barbarian monsters and only stories of heroism appeared about our forces.

How things have changed!!.

1."Terrorism" is too broad, if we said "Terrorism and it's State Sponsors." that might not work either unless we specifically named Iraq, Iran, ect.

2.Does the general population realize that we are at war? Comparing this to WWII may be the wrong thing to do. We are a protracted war, fighting in many different places. Besides the rise in gas prices how else does the average american feel the effects? In WWII we rationed gas, it was something that we as a nation put up with, during our time of need. I have trouble believing that we have the will to put up with hardships these days.

3.We also censored media in the fourties to a degree. Would a some censorship be a good thing during this war. If we had some in place, our military might not be getting dragged through the mud by the media (Abu Ghraib). Hopefully more people would know of the good stuff we are doing for the people of Iraq also.

I support President Bush and our actions, the media is just depressing most of the time.

Razor
05-23-2004, 17:52
Please explain to me how the GWOT has caused gasoline prices to rise.

The Reaper
05-23-2004, 18:04
Originally posted by Razor
Please explain to me how the GWOT has caused gasoline prices to rise.

The recent terrorist attack on the port facilities caused a temporary shutdown in the Iraqi port, and revamping of security there.

The big thing that it did was to raise insurance rates in Iraq and the area tremendously. It actually hit the point where it was not economically feasible to ship Iraqi oil, till rising prices change that.

It MAY have caused Moslem OPEC nations to adopt a harder line on production and pricing, but that is speculative.

This has all caused futures traders to bid up the price of crude and refined gasoline to record levels, as they speculate that prices will continue to increase.

TR

Razor
05-23-2004, 18:57
I saw a statistic the other day that showed Iraqi oil production in April 2003 somewhere around 230K barrels, and April 2004 at over 6 million. While the inability to ship all of it certainly plays a role, isn't Venezuela a much larger contributor to the 'community pot' of crude? I also had read that China's consumption of crude has sky-rocketed lately in response to a growing industrialization in the country (and in Russia, to a lesser extent), creating a much greater demand than has been seen in decades.

Roguish Lawyer
05-24-2004, 14:15
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Be nice to have a Constitutional scholar as a member. RL!!!! Recruiting trip!!!

I have invited a couple. No takers so far.

Airbornelawyer
05-24-2004, 14:50
This is the existing authorization for the war (Public Law 107-40):
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

WHEREAS, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

WHEREAS, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

WHEREAS, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States:

Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

(a) That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b)(1) Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

The "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq" is Public Law 107-243.

Airbornelawyer
05-24-2004, 16:06
And yo-yo-ing back to the price of gas, the main factors influencing the rise in gas prices are, surprisingly enough, supply and demand.

Unchecked demand is the main factor, especially from China and the United States to fuel their current economic expansions. The price of oil may be higher than it was a year or two ago, but historically it is still cheap, and there has been no real price signal to drive demand down.

On the supply side, worries about interruptions of Middle Eastern supplies are always there, and there was a spike after the unsuccessful small boat attack on the Iraqi terminals, but for the most part, the risk premium relating to Iraqi oil has already been factored in. Also, Iraqi supply is steadily increasing. Overall worldwide though, most oil production is at or near capacity. American refineries are operating at an average 93 percent of capacity.

BTW, no new oil refinery has been built in the US since 1976, mainly due to prohibitive costs imposed by environmental regulation. Do you suppose that might play a role? Domestic refinery output is almost 2 million barrels/day less than it was 20 years ago.

Razor
05-24-2004, 17:09
AL, I was recently speaking with someone (a dyed-in-the-wool democrat) regarding the cost of oil/gasoline. Once I was able to effectively argue that the price increase is, as you said, a supply vs. demand issue (and not a move by Bush to get more money for his oil buddies before he gets voted out of office in Nov :rolleyes: ), he asked why US companies that have capped-off wells in TX, AK and offshore don't start pumping them to increase domestic supply. I figure it has to do with the cost of buying foreign oil vs. the cost of pumping domestic wells, but I don't have any numbers to back this up. Since you are the Professional Soldiers King of Trivia, am I on the right track?

DanUCSB
05-24-2004, 17:23
You have to remember that it is not just the oil supply itself, but also refinery capacity. There are ways to increase overall crude supply (I believe Saudi Arabia just agreed to increase their production by 2m barrels/day), but there are hinderances to that: where I live, for instance, there's tremendous public outcry over any new drilling off the coast because of environmental concerns, as well as the perpetual issues over drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Of course, I never understood these arguments: I guess the environment in California and Alaska, where drilling would be tightly regulated by the EPA, is more valuable than the environment in other countries, where there are much looser laws in effect. NIMBYism at its best.

The other half is the refining. Obviously, you can't just pump light sweet crude into your gas tank. AL is correct when he said that no new refineries have been built in the US since 1976. Why? Because with all the hassle and expense of the environmental laws we have, it's just not worth it to the gasoline suppliers. What do they care? Gasoline is relatively inelastic; that is, we'll use roughly the same amount whether the price goes up or down. Are the suppliers crying because we're paying them too much money for gas? Ha.

Airbornelawyer
05-24-2004, 17:56
If your friend thinks there's tons of oil just waiting for someone to turn a spigot in TX, AK and offshore, tell him to put down the pipe. The easy to extract oil in the US has already been extracted. Most US oil wells that are capped are capped because there isn't any more oil to lift, or what there is would cost more to lift than it could be sold for. The oil we have is mostly in hard-to-access places like northern Alaska or in difficult geology like oil shale. In Saudi Arabia by contrast, you could get oil out of the ground almost as easily as Jed Clampett.

By the way, for a little perspective on the high cost of gas, in constant 1982-1984 dollars, as of January 2004, the average price of gasoline was 88.3 cents/gallon. The average for 2003 was 89.0 cents/gallon. And working backward:

2002 - 80.1
2001 - 86.4
2000 - 90.8
1999 - 73.3
1998 - 68.4
1997 - 80.4
1996 - 82.1
1995 - 79.1
1994 - 79.2
1993 - 81.2
1992 - 84.8
1991 - 87.8
1990 - 93.1
1989 - 85.5
1988 - 81.4
1987 - 84.2
1986 - 84.9
1985 - 111.2
1984 - 115.3
1983 - 123.0
1982 - 132.7
1981 - 148.8
1980 - 148.2
1979 - 121.5
1978 - 100.0

In other words, except for a few years when the price of gas was exceptionally low, gas today is as cheap or only a little more expensive than its average for the last 20 years, and is significantly less than what it was in the 1970s and first half of the 1980s. Other data I've seen carries this trend back even further, and notes that in constant dollars, gas is as cheap now as it was in the 1950s. Factoring in growth in per capita income, and adjusting it also for inflation, people generally have more than twice as much money to spend on gas. So gas has held almost steady in price almost 50 years, while people have much more money to spend on it. No wonder consumption is relatively inelastic.

Roguish Lawyer
05-24-2004, 18:00
I would be interested to see numbers for 1973 and 2004, AL.

"PS King of Trivia" -- LMAO! Nice, Razor.

Airbornelawyer
05-25-2004, 11:45
This chart, prepared in August of last year, is in 1996 dollars, so it won't correlate with the actual numbers in my earlier post (which were based on a 1982-1984 average), but the trend is the same.

QRQ 30
05-25-2004, 13:08
I'm not sure how the price of gas got in here unless we are discussing whether the war in Iraq is about oil.

Using an interesting tool at: http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=inflation+Calculator&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3D4 5259eb0ba9a6f23%26clickedItemRank%3D1%26userQuery% 3Dinflation%2BCalculator%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%2 53A%252F%252Fwww.westegg.com%252Finflation%252F%26 invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DNSCPIndex2%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.westegg.com%2Finflatio n%2F

you will notice that after inflation the gas at $148,8 in 1988 would cost $2.26.3 in 2002. HGMMMMM!!

Sorry, that link didn't work. Do a Google search for inflation calculator and use the first choice.

The Reaper
05-25-2004, 13:22
Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
This chart, prepared in August of last year, is in 1996 dollars, so it won't correlate with the actual numbers in my earlier post (which were based on a 1982-1984 average), but the trend is the same.

That data does not reflect the run up since August, which IIRC, is about an additional 50% increase in the price at the pump.

TR

Airbornelawyer
05-25-2004, 14:01
Originally posted by The Reaper
That data does not reflect the run up since August, which IIRC, is about an additional 50% increase in the price at the pump.

TR I already had numbers through January 2004 in my earlier post, but as noted the baseline was different. The January 2004 price was actually slightly less than the 2003 average. The latest EIA numbers show the average February 2004 price as about 7.3 cents per gallon higher than January. There are no official March or April numbers yet.

But if you really want numbers, here are the real motor gasoline average pump prices from 1919 to 2005 (the 2004-05 numbers are projections) in 2004 dollars. Happy? ;)

Airbornelawyer
05-25-2004, 14:05
No?

How about a comparison of real prices (in 2004 dollars) to notional prices from 1980 to 2005?