Unconstitutional Wars are Lonely Ones for Our Troops

Posted by Eric F. Langborgh on 09 Oct 2007 at 11:32 am

Over at National Review Online is a good article by Rich Lowry, “The Lonely War: A whole different world in Baghdad.”

A few things I find notable about this article, including the reiteration of what seems to be the consensus report out of Iraq: the fact that our presence there now amounts to keeping our finger in the dike.  Ignored, of course, is the fact that we are the ones who breached the dike in the first place.  Also ignored is the fact that no amount of American troops can hold off gravity forever.  Eventually, water must flow downhill until it reaches equilibrium.  Better to let nature take its course now, I believe, then forestall the inevitable.  In other words, Ron Paul is right: We bombed and marched our way in; we can (and should) march right out.  I think it will be for the better — for Iraqis and America alike - the apocalyptic and hysterical warnings of neo-con warmongers notwithstanding.  (Check out this video at YouTube, b/c Iraqi Christians — the few left that haven’t been driven into exile as a result of our occupation — agree.)

But here is the more significant statement, from my perspective, in Lowry’s article:

This is the lonely war. No one cares about it as much or understands it as well as the men and women here on the ground, who feel — understandably — that they are the only ones even remotely engaged in the fight.

The U.S. government has never brought to bear its resources in a truly national effort to win…

I hate to say it, but this is the inevitable consequence of going to war unconstitutionally (as we did in Iraq, despite some fanciful counterarguments out there).  Our soldiers are left to twist in the wind, with no clear direction from their country on when their work will be done, and to what end they bleed.

The failure of Congress to declare war both reflects and results in a lack of national will behind any war effort.  As I’ve argued many times here, this is precisely why politicians can speak out of both sides of their mouths concerning their support or lack thereof for the war.  And it is the very reason we haven’t won or had a satisfactory conclusion to any war we’ve involved ourselves in since the last one declared: World War II.  (Perhaps the “best” result was achieved in Korea, which ended with pre-war boundaries in a stalemate; even now the war is still officially on — our troops remain on the peninsula — as neither side has sued for peace but remain locked in an uneasy “cease-fire” agreement.) 

There is no prescribed formula for a Congressional Declaration of War, but there are set principles.  First, Congress — reflecting the will of the people, from which husbands, fathers and sons will be sent into battle -  must direct the president to wage war.  There is no constitutional authority to simply punt that responsibility and decision to the president, regardless of what official packaging that dereliction of duty comes in.  Second, Congress, in declaring war, likewise commits the full might and resources of the United States of America toward winning the war.  And third, Congress then submits the direction of the war to the president, the Commander-In-Chief.  The Founders expressed grave warnings if we fail to follow any of these three principles:  the people — not a king — must decide on war, and resolve the self-sacrifice necessary to win, and then the Commander-In-Chief must have discretion and authority to wage the war, free from the meddling of 535 would-be generals.  Failure at any point results in disaster.

These facts I expanded upon in detail — including heavy citations of the Founders and actual declarations of war versus the wording of the Iraq resolution — in my post, “Is the Iraq War Constitutional?”  Do read it — and do refer it to others.  We must make sure we avoid such mistakes and ill-begotten bloodshed in the future.

© 2004-2008 Eric F. Langborgh