Because You Never Asked

(12/05)

     When it comes to making my heart pump unnaturally, leading to the hair bristling, scarlet colored blush that envelops a face contorted in a squint of rage . nothing brings this condition upon me more quickly than an Iraqi war hawk (usually President "Mini-Me") ostentatiously proclaiming that "we are at war".

     This is not the first time during this imperial Iraqi oil gambit that the idea of the United States of America being "at war" has warped the emotional harmony of this writer. (see essay "September 11^th"). The recent divulgation of the unfettered domestic spying on American citizens by the W. government, along with the heated debate as to its legality, has brought the issue of being "at war" back into focus . at least for me. Unfortunately, our neo-liberal, Big Media news sources treat this being "at war" question as a leper issue relegated to the same quarantine as the "o" (oil) word. The fix is in. They have decided not to go there.

     That leaves it to us unknown essayists, armed with our feeble water gun arsenals, to confront the hi-tech, nuclear force represented by Big Media.

     Before bringing this idea of being "at war" into the realm of constitutional legality, with all the ramifications this might have as to how a nation supposedly dripping in freedom conducts itself, I will first talk about what it means in a practical sense. In other words, how should a genuine state of war be reflected in the lives of its citizens on the home front?

     The two Bush Oil Wars could be considered the first time in American history where the nation has not collectively shared in the fray. For those of you who find such a statement peculiar, I'll try to explain it with the following questions: How has your life changed now that we are "at war" in Iraq? What have you done to help in the war effort? I will not apologize when saying that unless you are part of the microscopic portion of Americans who've somehow blundered into Iraq militarily or greedily, you've done virtually nothing.

     Let's compare this to our previous wars.

     The greatest bellicose conflagration the United States has ever found itself in was its own Civil War, a monstrous inferno which involved the whole nation on its home soil. Its historic distance and obvious effects on all citizens make it unnecessary to comment upon here.

     Much more relevant to this essay is the nation's participation in WWII, a recent life and death struggle against military foes fighting in the same weight class as America (heavyweight). A traditional American advantage in these global conflicts is the built in convenience of not having them fought on its own territory. In spite of this advantage, anyone within the frontiers of the nation during WWII could not help but feel its enveloping presence. There was food and fuel rationing, victory gardens, women working in factories, an absence of young men, price controls, shortages, and the generally pervasive atmosphere of a nation mobilized for war. A way of life had been put on hold until the war's outcome had been resolved.

     There was sacrifice.

     The Cold War led us into the "containment" policy which engendered the Korean and Vietnamese wars. Although neither of these conflicts created any home front material deprivation, nor caused any change in the daily ambiance of our lives (other than political strife), they were both fought with the collective acceptance of conscripted citizen armies. Notwithstanding the usual tools of abstinence that make it easy for our more accommodated classes to avoid the fray (the poster boy for this segment of American society now being George W. Bush), all the nation's able bodied were subject to participation and obliged to be where they had to be. The Korean action, still basking in the glow of WWII's glory, experienced no motivational problems, but the extreme unwillingness of our fraternity party class of hypothetical soldiers during the Vietnam adventure, changed the game drastically.

     The "volunteer army" was much less an attempt to improve our military performance, and much more a device meant to avoid the reluctance of a conscripted army of citizens whose patriotic fervor might not match the sacrifice needed to fight the kind of wars the Bushes have led us into. The volunteer army is a mercenary army of "scabs" who are willing to fight these dirty little imperialistic wars of choice at a price the rest of us refuse to work at. The volunteer army is a paid police force of career killers whose primary job has been the protection and procurement of the world's fossil fuel sources. Except for the occasional inconvenience of being annoyingly fawned over by airport security, for the rest of us, being "at war" has never been so pleasant.

     But being "at war" brings up an important legal question as well.

     Since WWII, this nation has been involved in so many serious military actions without there being a Declaration of War, that most Americans don't even realize that being "at war" is a formal state of being. "Only Congress can declare war". It's not just sad but tragic (Vietnam, Iraq) to say that this clause in the Constitution has now become a tonsil-like organ that exists but serves no purpose. This becomes High Def relevant when President W. and his sicarios are constantly trying to undermine the most basic aspects of America's civil liberties with the excuse that we are "at war".

     We are? Who defines that?

     According to the Constitution, it's Congress that defines that . and rightly so. The Founders understood that military action is the most serious decision a nation can take. They understood that putting such a decision under the exclusive dominion of one person would be reckless.

     Boy, were they ever right!

     Clearly defining when our civil liberties can be infringed upon is not the only reason to have a State of War formalized. Forcing the Congress to formally Declare War in situations such as Iraq would take the blur off the television screen. It would perfectly focus a more heightened debate as to exactly what using military force is all about. A formal Declaration of War would make anything less than something close to unanimity seem reckless (because it is). With Congress having now abdicated its war power function, all we get is a superficial shadow boxing debate fraught with political wiggle room and ambiguity. It's a copout, a cowardly way to avoid the democratic responsibilities the Constitution bestows on our overly corporate lobbied representatives. It stinks.

     But there's more. Nobody in the Bush Administration ever talks about American forces; it's always "coalition" forces. Only the most fanatically ignorant could conjure up support for this war in other parts of the world, and yet, some right wing parliamentary governments (which begs the question, what the hoo is Tony Blair up to?) contributed a symbolic spit in the ocean to the military operation. Most notable here are Spain, Italy and Australia, along with a more robust but still puny English contribution. If the American Congress had to officially Declare War to carry out the dirty deed, it would make it virtually impossible for these countries, awash in anti-war sentiment, to follow suit. The "coalition" would be reduced to the Poland-Ukraine-Mongolias of the world.

     What I'm proposing with all this is to make it much more difficult for the nation to immerse itself in these greedy little imperial exercises that have done so much to damage the country. Can anyone but the most delusional say that Vietnam and Iraq have been positive experiences for the United States?

     I'm not naïve. I have dim recollections of legal challenges to undeclared wars in the past, challenges that were swept away with hardly a media mention. And that is the key; someone has to sell this to the American people. Someone has to drag Big Media into this. It's a real issue.