Isis is not a nation-state. If Congress did declare
war on it, how would we know when it was over?
Somebody might sign a surrender, and then other
parts of it go on fighting. So it would go on and on
and on. I don't say we shouldn't fight it, but I am troubled as to knowing just when it would be
over, and when to declare victory (a unilateral
declaration, as there would be no central nation-
state authority to say, "We surrender, you win'',
as at the end of World War II).

They are not worthy of a declaration of war inasmuch as they are not a sovereign nation. However, that doesn't mean we can't go in and obliterate the bastards, the sooner the better. Don't give me legal gobbledegook. Those semi-humans want to kill us. Any action against them is self-defense - pure and simple.

For decades Congress has avoided its Constitutional duty to exclusively determine whether or not the United States is at war. Instead it has delegated the power to decide whether to wage war or not to the executive branch by passing various resolutions. The judicial branch has stood by passively and allowed this afront to the Constitution. The founders wanted Congress to make this crucial decision, but Congress prefers to punt. Someone in Congress should have the cojones to put up a war declaration for a vote. Why aren't Cruz, Paul or Graham doing this? These guys pretend to be constitutionalists. Bah.

A bit of fantasy to brighten a dull overcast Monday.

Although some points have already been made in the post I will do so again just to be “clear”. A war on an ideology is just stupid doing as stupid does. The only thing killed are those adherents that stand and voice that ideology. Whether it is religion, drugs, or poverty .

For instance, a war on poverty declared by FDR has not only lost but has been instrumental in creating more people drawn into the poverty. The loss comes after spending some $17 Trillion on the war. For many reasons but one reason is it is easier to put your hand out for a check rather than take responsibility for yourself.

The war on drugs has lost in large part do to the money that can be made selling and dealing drugs. It is worldwide and not just a US problem. Also some people will do whatever is needed and spend whatever is needed to ease the pain of their own folly and then blame it on the drug, their parents, the system or whatever.

I am willing to get behind a Constitutional Declaration of War but there must be a few pre-conditions. There is always the “but” factor. Some of the pre-conditions will be needed to set forth a budget for the coming CDOW.

1. All foreign aide regardless of country must be stopped immediately and prior to any CDOW. No exceptions.
2. Prior to any CDOW a coalition of foreign governments MUST agree and be convened and brought into the fight.
A. Minimum of 6 Middle East countries and 6 European countries MUST participate in the coalition.
B. All countries participating MUST share expense proportionally. (Money, people and supplies.
3. No law is to be made regarding Amendment 3 for the duration of this and only this CDOW. All future CDOWs will be on a case by case.
4. All Congressional, Federal and Executive pensions and healthcare are suspended and the monies diverted to the current CDOW budget. Any monies paid to the CDOW will not be paid retroactive back to those it was taken from.
5. All Welfare, Housing allowance and Food Stamps will be stripped to the bare minimum. All able bodied currently on any of those programs will be paid for working in the machinery of the CDOW. To include building planes, ammo, ships or other items needed in the fight of the CDOW.
6. Upon approval of Congress and the signing of the CDOW by the President, Congress nor the President will have any further voice in the CDOW. It (CDOW) will be turned over to the Military for carrying out.
7. Rules of Engagement --- destroy all current Radical Islamic Groups by whatever means necessary. (ie ISIS, al Queda, Boko Haram etc.)

None of this will destroy the ideology but it will severely cull the herd of those barbarians known as Radical Islamic Jihad.

Coming soon: Severely limiting the power of the US Gov't to interfere in another country's Internal affairs without a verifiable direct attack on the US homeland.

Never declare war unless you have the possibility of winning it, otherwise you are endorsing eternal conflict.

This means that the agency that you declare war against has the capability of being destroyed or surrendering ending the war. This is why you can't declare 'war' on drugs, or poverty or Islam.

When George Bush had the "mission accomplished" aircraft carrier speech the undeclared war had been completed. The country of Iraq had been captured by the military and the war was over.

What followed after that was the inevitable failure of the bureaucrats to manage a centrally planned economy.

Congress will not declare war on ISIS because ISIS is the ally of the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Israel in their war on Assad. Deposing Assad is the goal of US foreign policy in Syria, endorsed by both Republicans, Democrats, and our European allies. As far back as the Arab Spring movements in 2011, the US government contemplated using fundamentalist Salafists (Sunni Islamic extremists) against Assad. If ISIS's support from the US was not clear before Putin went into Syria, it is painfully obvious now. The US government has rejected all overtures to join him in ridding Syria and Iraq of ISIS.

Several problems with this (in no particular order):

1. ISIS is not a recognized international entity with borders. They occupy land, but even if we took over all that land, would ISIS cease to exist?

2. ISIS is an ideology - not a country - representative of a much larger population - approximately 1/5th of the world's population.

3. Our current President refuses to even acknowledge ISIS as a real threat. It's pretty hard to go to war with something the Commander-in-Chief won't define.

4. What are the terms of victory?

Most of the article's sources seem to be "hanging themselves up" on the question of whether "to declare war" necessarily restricts itself to "against a nation-state with recognizable territory." I would have thought one could always declare war against a stateless group or even an individual. After all, if Article III, Section 3 defines "treason against the United States" to include "levying war against them," that in itself recognizes that even an individual can wage war against a country.

Having said that, I also observe Congress has not declared formal war against anyone since 1941. And I have to wonder why. Would it have anything to do with the tremendous national debt? Do so many government officials and buildings have civilian insurance policies? Policies that would instantly become invalid in time of declared war? (I don't buy it. Many insurance policies exclude losses due to war, "declared or undeclared.")

One thing a war declaration would do, is clear the Congress to quarter "soldiers," however one defines them, in private houses, by passing a law to that effect. Would Congress federalize all uniformed law-enforcement agencies and provide for overriding any "consent" considerations on stake-outs, for instance? For I maintain an LEO on stakeout, in any private home, is "quartered" in that home while on stakeout. Modern police have come a lot further than the cadre of municipal slaves in ancient Athens, who carried nothing more than a nightstick for crowd control. A modern police officer is armed almost as well as a modern infantryman. And deserves the same treatment under the law and Constitution, especially the Third Amendment.

One last thing: Judicial Watch turned up documentary evidence strongly suggesting ISIS are getting some of their funding from the United States government. A formal declaration of war would necessitate an immediate investigation. And some people could wind up standing trial for treason.

What I think is that I see a lot of Headline posts from you with links to WorldNetDaily, founded and run by Joseph Farrah, an evanglical Christian prophesier and Conservative from the farthest reaches of the Right Wing. Not too sure why an avowed 'Objectivist' would rely so much on this Christian/Conservative online news source that describes itself as follows:

"For 18 years, WND has been the world’s best-kept secret in Christian content and marketing. But the word is getting out.

There’s a reason WND.com has the largest reach of any Christian website on planet Earth.
There’s a reason WND’s weekly and monthly subscription magazines are growing—online and off—when other national news magazines are struggling.
There’s a reason WND Films have dominated the sales charts among faith releases since 2012.
There’s a reason the WND Superstore is among the largest online retailers in the world.

Are you in the business of reaching Christians, particularly in North America?
Are you a Christian book publisher or film producer?
Are you a Christian broadcaster?
Are you part of a Christian business that needs more attention and more customers?

If the answer to any of those questions is YES, you need to understand the opportunities WND offers you and your business.
WND is not your competitor. We’re your partner."

We have every right, but not a duty, to wipe this scum off the face of the earth.

Blinders.....There is a big problem with the question, other than the lack of a nation state as others have said. The main reason that would never happen is because WE created ISIS, we fund ISIS, we supply ISIS with weapons. They are mercenaries. We hired them to destabilize Libya and now Syria. We apparently don't care that they rape women, kill children, and behead Christians and Jews - they are protecting "American Interests", whatever those are.

So, we would essentially be declaring war on our own "guys". That is why Putin made a brilliant chess move, daring us to admit it.

Look at the oil tanker idiocy. Putin makes a statement that ISIS is making money on oil and that he has been bombing their supply. (Not outright revealing who is buying it) A couple days later, the US media puts out a story that we destroyed an oil tanker convoy, using Russian video footage, mind you. And, then it comes out that we dropped leaflets on the convoy to give them a 45 minute heads up so the operators could live to sell oil again.

As for a Constitutional question (if ISIS wasn't our proxy), the only option is a Letter of Marque and Reprisal. That is the only option for non-state aggression. Aside from our own military operations, it even gives the government the ability to hire mercenary companies like Black Water/XE/whatever they call themselves these days. This is what Ron Paul tried to get after 9/11. But, instead, we decided to install a military dictator and participate in a civil war, and sell heroine, ignoring the original target. Hmm......

Hmm, a declared war on the very creatures created by the shadows of the same kakistocracatic (variant of kakistocracy) government they perpetuate...However, now that the beast of all beasts has been created, the question is how to dispose of it. It could be done quickly. Ideally by the same creatures that created the beast in the first place. At their own expense would be sadly too much to even ask for.

It's like destroying your own foot for stepping in crap (which was your own) because you brought it into the house.
Proof positive why it's not wise to be a friend nor do a favor for government; it will turn on you and itself eventually.

And yes, I do realize this is an Albert Pike like plan to create a 3rd war and institute a one world kakistocracy., [world government comprised of the worst and least qualified in the smaller kakistocracies] Can you say Hegelian Dialectic?

I would vote OUT any politician who wants to fight ISIS. Its a sectarian conflict between SUNNI and SHIITE sects. Let them fight each other for ALLAH and kill each other off and go to "heaven" or whatever it is they think is there.

cleaning up the mess in the middle east is not our problem...it is the responsibility of those in the middle east...and when they can clean up their problem of violent religions, then and only then we can talk about letting them out of the middle east...

What would be the point of declaring war on ISIS if the government keeps pushing that "Islam is a religion of peace"? Kind of like declaring war on the Gestapo while proclaiming that Nazism is a movement for peace and making allies with the SS because they promised to be against the Gestapo.

But meanwhile, with the declaration of war, they get to take away more liberties (permanently), justify higher taxes and less accountability and shut up any dissent. And no one says that you have to win the war within a lifetime...

Simply declaring war sounds nice, but is meaningless without a strategy. On the one hand, the U.S. declaring war on the IS in essence means we recognize them as a sovereign nation - problem for some there, but for me a simple technicality. On the other hand, what do you seek to achieve that you call victory? Body counts are meaningless in an environment where bodies are piling up every day, and capturing property is irrelevant, unless you intend to capture and hold Mecca as hostage (the Saudis might have a problem there).

The only possible strategy that seems to make sense is to look at the mythology that's driving the movement, and bring it crashing down. Since the draw for ISIS is that we're in the end days, and creating a worldwide caliphate will bring the pure world and the return of Mohamed and Jesus. Looking at the elements of that belief, it calls for the ultimate battle to be fought in Syria, between the army of Allah and the infidel nations, ending in Muslim victory. It seems to me logical that the way to bring a halt to all of this nonsense is to throw down the gauntlet and challenge ISIS to the ultimate battle at the Syrian location called out in legend. If they waffle, and say the time isn't yet, then we can make interested Muslims question their validity with an effective social media campaign, turning the tables on them and defanging the beast. If they're stupid enough to pick up the gauntlet, then Western military technology should decide the outcome in a way that is equally devastating to their religious arguments.

Comments?

I am not particularly wise about politics, but isn't this a no-loose game for the Democrats? If a Republican Congress declares war and it does not go well, then the Dems can point blame on the Republicans. If it does 'go well' then the Democrats can show that they supported it.

From the Democratic perspective, what's not to like about this?

Jan

Didn't the fedgov declare war on poverty and on drugs already?
How well did that work out?

Politically, We MUST, on behalf of that for which we strive, embrace allies of all political stripes, AS LONG AS SIGHT OF THE VALUES FOR WHICH WE STRIVE REMAIN CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS!

Failure to reverse our course will ultimately lead to yet another example of the worst of human behavior. For it will matter littlel to our children and grand children that in such an eventuality the brutality, carnage, and injustice, that will inevitably ensue, will be centered on the President, Congress, and Government, rather than the King, Parliament, and the Crown.