4 ms·
Are they at war with the Taliban? The US haven't formally been at war with anyone since WWII[1], so we must rely on an informal definition of war (otherwise ev
by jkn 10y ago
Are they at war with the Taliban?
The US haven't formally been at war with anyone since WWII[1], so we must rely on an informal definition of war (otherwise even Vietnam would be excluded).
A middle-ground definition of war that requires parties to be nation states but doesn't require a declaration of war, seems a bit arbitrary.
Instead of declaring war, the US now has Congress-sanctioned "use of military force". This includes the current "conflict" with the Taliban regime.
In this context the line between war casualties and assassination is very blurry. I think the blur itself might be one of the worst things about this new way of waging war.
[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/all-the-previous-declarations-of-war/279246/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/all-the-...
- kefka 10y agoWell, congress has the other legal tool alongside "War", which is to 'grant letters of Marque and Reprisal'. They both grant war, either on a country, or individual scale. The actual quote from the Constitution is thus: "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;" If ISIS isn't a state-level entity (which I believe it is, but does not follow agreed upon definitions of countries) then these Letters of Marque are sufficient if levied against their organization.
- dragonwriter 10y agoLetters of marque aren't an alternative to war for non-state enemies (no such alternative is needed; war precedes the concept of the nation-state). Letters of marque are a means of authorizing private vessels to act as naval auxiliaries (such that they are portrayed by and subject to the laws of war, rather than legally pirates.)