My last post was on February 27th. It felt at the time like things might be looking up. Then, news came that the US had attacked Iran. My outlook has been bleak ever since. The last several days have been a knot of tension and rage. All my commentary on HIVE thus far has been via snaps, like that link except more eloquent.
Image credit
Mark Twain's War Prayer is as relevant now as it was when he penned it over a century ago. Innocent men, women, and children have been butchered in Iran, and blowback has lead to deaths across the middle east. Here in the US, war fever has hit harder than COVID. Nothing about this war makes sense, but as usual, tribalism is informing positions more than reason. Talking points have replaced logic and evidence. While more people die in a new pointless war, partisan bickering has taken over on social media. I don't even know how many Web2 accounts are real humans these days. Between bots and engagement farms, the signal-to-noise ratio could be abysmal. However, people I know in real life are also swallowing these lies hook, line, and sinker.
Illegal War
One of the main misconceptions (or blatant lies?) from MAGA jingoes relates to the 1973 War Powers Resolution. Despite Trump and many of his predecessors insisting otherwise, this bill was deigned to prevent exactly this sort of overreach. You can find the full text here, but this section outlining its purpose and scope at the start is key.
(a) Congressional declaration
It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
(b) Congressional legislative power under necessary and proper clause
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
In section C above, there are three specific, limited instances where the President can use military force. However (1) there has been no declaration of war, (2) there is no specific statutory authorization, and (3) there has been no national emergency created by any attack on the US.
Any discussion of "60 calendar days" or other later provisions are moot if the basic threshold has not been met in the first place. Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution is explicit in its list of enumerated powers for Congress, and clause 11 clearly states it has the exclusive power to,
...[D]eclare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
This is completely ignored by MAGA apologists, who want to leap directly to Article 2, Section 2, clause 1, which states,
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States [...]
However, they ignore the explicit caveat that this only applies to when the military is called into actual service. As in, when Congress has declared war or made a specific statutory authorization. Donald J. Trump notably failed to ask for that, or make a case for war at all, during his State of the Union speech.
For lack of a better term, I am an anarchist. I reject the legitimacy of all governments. I lean toward Lysander Spooner's argument in No Treason No. VI: The Constitution of No Authority (1870), where he closed with, "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain—that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." However, Republicans like to portray themselves as staunch defenders of small government and strict construction of the Constitution, so their blatant disregard for the plain language there in the clear limitations in law demonstrates cognitive dissonance.
Unjust War
If war can be just, it must meet several strict criteria. Philosophers differ here as much as anywhere else, but the typical consensus boils down to competent authorities can only rightly declare war as a last resort for a just cause with a reasonable probability of success.
National rulers and elected representatives are presumed to be competent authorities, but the President of the United States cannot legally act on his own outside of specific emergencies as already discussed.
This is a war of choice, not a war of necessity. Negotiations were ongoing, and reportedly making progress, not trapped in a stalemate. There was no last resort. Instead, Trump demolished his claims to both peace and diplomacy in his attack.
A just cause must be more than a propaganda campaign. Defense against a clear and present danger, or action to prevent imminent danger to human life, would qualify. However, despite Iran's abysmal human rights record, they are far from a unique evil, and America has turned a blind eye to equal or greater atrocities committed by its allies. This humanitarian concern was one of several excuses thrown ta the wall to see what would stick, not a real justification.
Finally, a just war requires reasonable odds of success, and the post-World War II era has an abysmal track record for interventionism, regime change, and occupation. This war in particular is a logistical disaster already, and no grand strategy or victory plan has been announced.
But that's not all. That only covers starting a war. Once a nation is engaged in war, there are more criteria to determine whether it is waged in a just manner. Combat operations must be proportionate, make a distinction between combatants and non-combatants, and actions must be restricted to military necessity instead of wanton destruction and torture.
Needless to say, the USA and Israel have failed on each of these criteria already as well. Schools and hospitals have reportedly been destroyed, with over 150 schoolgirls brutally murdered as "collateral damage." Whether this incident was a direct result of US/Israeli munitions, or a malfunctioning Iranian defense missile as some report, is really irrelevant since Iran did not initiate this war. However, Israel's actions in Gaza lead me to consider their excuses here with considerable skepticism.
Inconsistent Excuses
We needed to go to war to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, even though they were part of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, passed numerous inspections, and signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with the United States, China, France, Germany, Russia and United Kingdom. Then, just last year, Donald Trump sent bombers to "Totally obliterate" Iran's nuclear capabilities, which were still under inspections from the International Atomic Energy Agency with no reported nuclear weapons programs despite higher levels of enrichment. The late Ayatollah Khamenei also issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons, for what it's worth.
Then we also needed to go to war to protect Iranian protesters and political dissidents because Iran had created a humanitarian crisis. Never mind US chaos. Never mind Israel's treatment of Gaza and the West Bank. Pay no attention to literal modern-day slavery in many US-allied Arab states. Nope, we need to protect Iranians from Iran above all else!
Then, the justifications started citing historical conflicts dating back a decade to the 2016 US/Iran Naval incident, dubious allegations of Iranian involvement in IED production during the Iraq war, or even the 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis. Why do those suddenly matter now? And why don't these historical analyses dare to look back to the 1953 Iranian coup d'état where the USA and Britain conspired to overthrow a democratic government and install the Shah as dictator? That is what sparked the eventual 1979 Iranian revolution, and created a deep distrust for the west in Iran.
Then, we heard straight from Marco Rubio that this was all because Israel was planning an attack, and the US decided joining in was the best option, because... reasons?
Sorry, that doesn't fly. If the US is really allowing Israel to dictate when, where, and with whom we wage war, it is long past time to cut ties, tell the truth to their targets, and let Tel Aviv suffer the consequences. Israel is not the 51st state, they consume vast sums of US tax revenue, and berate anyone who criticizes their secular state as "antisemitic." With friends like these, who needs enemies?
And no, criticizing the secular state of Israel is not the same as hatred for Judaism, ethnic Jews, or Israeli civilians, Don't conflate those things. That would be like saying opposition to the US government automatically means hatred for all Americans, and that's just stupid. I'm an anarchist, remember? My enemy is the political class, not nationality, race, or religion. And in the words of Randolph Bourne,
With the shock of war, however, the State comes into its own again. The Government, with no mandate from the people, without consultation of the people, conducts all the negotiations, the backing and filling, the menaces and explanations, which slowly bring it into collision with some other Government, and gently and irresistibly slides the country into war. [...] The result is that, even in those countries where the business of declaring war is theoretically in the hands of representatives of the people, no legislature has ever been known to decline the request of an Executive, which has conducted all foreign affairs in utter privacy and irresponsibility, that it order the nation into battle.
[...]
War is the health of the State. It automatically sets in motion throughout society those irresistible forces for uniformity, for passionate cooperation with the Government in coercing into obedience the minority groups and individuals which lack the larger herd sense.*
Don't lie about what they are fighting for,
Don't claim they died as heroes over there,
Or claim that foreign deaths are somehow fair.
Supposedly there will be Congressional action tomorrow to retroactively approve or condemn Trump's war. We will see what, if anything, happens.
