'Unwise' can always be an easy case to make concerning a war -- but 'unconstitutional'?
It strikes me that the Iraq Campaign of WWIV was not the least approved military action in US history but the most approved. Which makes sense because as society becomes more bureaucratic, military force authorizations will become more bureaucratic as well.
Here are five approving acts or events.
1) The Persian Gulf War Resolution adopted January 12, 1991.
The initial fight with Iraq was approved by just about everyone on earth save Jordan and the PLO. The UN, NATO, the Politburo of the Soviet Union and the Democrat-controlled US Congress all approved the military response to the invasion of Kuwait.
The invasion was ended after 4 days of ground fighting with a cease-fire agreement which was immediately and persistently violated by Iraq during the subsequent 12 years including shooting at US and British aircraft and an attempt to assassinate George H. W. Bush.
2) The World Trade Center Bombing February 26, 1993.
There is quite a bit of evidence that the '93 plotters were connected to Iraqi Intelligence.
- "Now, how did a young man who had led a seemingly normal life up until August 1990 suddenly become a world class terrorist six months after Iraq invaded his country of residence? Where did he get such sophisticated explosives training in just six months? (The real Abdul Basit's degree, remember, was in electronic engineering, not chemistry, which Swansea Institute does not even teach.) "
3) Bin Laden's Fatwa or Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places dated August 23, 1996.
My Muslim Brothers of The World:If war is declared against a country, it doesn't have to declare war itself because - guess what - you're already at war. There's no rule stating that one cannot conduct a war against an international conspiracy rather than a nation state. Indeed, WWIII was fought more against an international conspiracy than against any nation states. Once one is at war, strategy and tactics are the responsibility of the Executive Branch - not Congress. Who you attack in response and when is a strategic or tactical choice. If one happened to already be at war against a nation that was right in the heart of the Middle East, it might be convenient to finish that war to take a terrorist-supporting state off the board in the course of a larger war against Osama and others seeking to reestablish the Caliphate.
Your brothers in Palestine and in the land of the two Holy Places are calling upon your help and asking you to take part in fighting against the enemy --your enemy and their enemy-- the Americans and the Israelis. they are asking you to do whatever you can, with one own means and ability, to expel the enemy, humiliated and defeated, out of the sanctities of Islam.
4) The New York City and Washington DC Attacks of September 11, 2001.
If one is attacked, no "Declaration of War" is required because - guess what - you're already at war. Once one is at war, strategy and tactics are the responsibility of the Executive Branch - not Congress. Who you attack in response and when is a strategic or tactical choice. For example: What was the first foreign nation invaded by US forces following the Pearl Harbor Attack of 1941? Answer - France, specifically French Morocco. Thus, there is precedent for resuming a conflict with a nation such as Iraq which, after all, we were still at war with and which had committed numerous acts of war against us.
5) Authorization for Use of Military Force adopted September 18, 2001.
Provided broad authority for the use of military force. Once one is at war, strategy and tactics are the responsibility of the Executive Branch - not Congress.
6) Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq - Resolution of 2002 adopted October 16, 2002.
Provided broad authority for the use of military force. Once one is at war, strategy and tactics are the responsibility of the Executive Branch - not Congress. BTW, 6 of the 12 stated justifications for the use of force against Iraq in this Resolution do not involve WMDs.
Being a good libertarian anarchist, I naturally oppose the socialist provision of military services. I would prefer privatization of our foreign policy and the use of Letters of Marque and Reprisal governed by Rules for Captures on Land and Water. On the other hand, as a good libertarian anarchist, I oppose the concept of national sovereignty -- ours or anyone else's.
As to the issue of whether or not a war is "unwise". Note that war is a two (or more)-party activity. If someone is at war with you, you are at war whatever your opinion happens to be about the matter.
I think it's safe to say that since the first domestic attack on the US by Arab/Islamic forces in the modern era, we've been a war whatever our opinion happens to be about the matter.
But it's not a 'real' war, is it?
The Kaiser, Imperial Japan, Hitler, and the USSR; those were real enemies in real wars, weren't they?
Question -- how many civilians in the Continental US were killed (in total) by those enemies? Somewhere in the vicinity of 6. Perhaps there were a few more killed during WWI, WWII, and WWIII in espionage operations here. Meanwhile, our current enemies have killed somewhere in the vicinity of 3000. Sounds 'real' to me.
But let's think further about this argument: but libertarianism certainly demands a commitment to ending a war one thinks is unconstitutional and unwise.
Is the above true? Does libertarianism qua libertarianism require us not to do unwise things (whether they are a love affair or a war)? I would guess that libertarianism demands that we not aggress not that we eschew unwise behavior. Lots of human behavior is both unwise and does not violate the non-aggression axiom.
Does libertarianism qua libertarianism require us not to do unconstitutional things. Depends on the constitution, doesn't it? Libertarian archists (in the US) may feel themselves bound to be defenders of the US constitution but surely libertarian anarchists (or non-US libertarian archists) would not be so bound. I don't see that defense of a (particular) constitution is a particularly libertarian value.