CL | 2005-12-22
About the fact that nobody declares war any more, CL says,
"Since this is a seminar, I'll unashamedly add some other thoughts on this topic:"
"All of these banana republics (from Korea to Iraq) that we've attacked–but haven't "declared war" on–have had -0- capability of performing a real military operation in the United States. Is it possible a "declaration of war" would only be considered for an "equal?" Bullies don't usually make a big deal of beating-up a pipsqueak."
"To follow the question of what constitutes a "real military operation" in the nuclear age would take the discussion way off course."
"But maybe that's another reason "declarations of war" aren't used anymore: Did the end of the "conventional warfare" era make such declarations obsolete?"
"And we haven't established what the actual purposes of such declarations were–other than as matters of convention, I mean. Did they have a purpose other than pomp and circumstance? If not, wouldn't today's omnipresent media be more effective rousing for war than a carnival barker type declaration to be reprinted next week on the front page of the county newspaper? Maybe it's not the new military age, but the new propaganda age, that has made declarations of war superfluous."
Comment by CL — 12/22/
CL, as to your first sentence, I like to think I have bravely led the way.
If somebody has the guts to hand out the BS I so often write with complete shamelessness, you have complete license, too.
You have hit on oint I mentioned but never thought of. I wrote a piece below about how at least part of the rationale for "nonproliferation (Anonymous some points about that)" is that we take it for granted that former colonial powers can handle nukes but their former colonies can't.
I agree with that, but all the people who are against proliferation now called my attitudes evil and racist.
You started by referring to the countries we are fighting in a banana republics and you also said, with perfect legtimacy, that we don't declare war on such people. You said, "Is it possible a "declaration of war" would only be considered for an "equal?" Bullies don't usually make a big deal of beating-up a pipsqueak."
That is very much the attitude everyone takes for granted. The United States of America does not declare war on pipsqueaks, any more than General Lee would have dueled with a hunk of white trash.
Lurking behind this is an attitude. And it is not YOUR attitude, it is one you have pointed to.
Yes, a declaration of war would imply an equality we do not even consider granting.
But I repeat, if the Gospel we preach that every country is equal and sovereign, why do we NOT declare them EQUAL?
Let me repeat this for Anonymous's benefit. If you hire less than the required number of minorities, it is assumed that racism is at least ONE of your motivations.
But if no non-white country should have nukes, if all those fully sovereign little countries ar enot worth a declaration of war because it implies equality, no one assumes that any part of the motivation is racist.
Not a bit of it.
As to the PURPOSE of a declaration of war, we have had a demonstration of how practical a matter that is at Gitmo.
Many, many things used to change the moment war was declared.
But your last sentence has made me think of what might be the clincher.
In Vietnam only the poor people who couldn't dodge the draft in college were sent out to die. In a state of war, Jane Fonda and all the college protestors would have been subject to charges of collaboration.
To put it simply, once war is declared it directly affects EVERYBODY. In Korea and Vietnam and Iraq we could do anything we wanted to with the grunts, but the media and everybody who counted were left out of it.
Could it be that a major explanation of the absence of war declarations results from class distinctions among those who declare they are against all class distinctions and racism among those who denounce racism?
CL, you sure helped me get some thinking done.