Crossposted with TomDispatch.com
If Americans Don’t Get Hurt, War Is No Longer War
The Obama administration has come up with a remarkable justification for going to war against Libya without the congressional approval required by the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
American planes are taking off, they are entering Libyan air space, they are locating targets, they are dropping bombs, and the bombs are killing and injuring people and destroying things. It is war. Some say it is a good war and some say it is a bad war, but surely it is a war.
Nonetheless, the Obama administration insists it is not a war. Why? Because, according to “United States Activities in Libya,” a 32-page report that the administration released last week, “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors.”
In other words, the balance of forces is so lopsided in favor of the United States that no Americans are dying or are threatened with dying. War is only war, it seems, when Americans are dying, when we die. When only they, the Libyans, die, it is something else for which there is as yet apparently no name. When they attack, it is war. When we attack, it is not.
This cannot be classified as anything but strange thinking and it depends, in turn, on a strange fact: that, in our day, it is indeed possible for some countries (or maybe only our own), for the first time in history, to wage war without receiving a scratch in return. This was nearly accomplished in the bombing of Serbia in 1999, in which only one American plane was shot down (and the pilot rescued).
The epitome of this new warfare is the predator drone, which has become an emblem of the Obama administration. Its human operators can sit at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada or in Langley, Virginia, while the drone floats above Afghanistan or Pakistan or Yemen or Libya, pouring destruction down from the skies. War waged in this way is without casualties for the wager because none of its soldiers are near the scene of battle -- if that is even the right word for what is going on.
Some strange conclusions follow from this strange thinking and these strange facts. In the old scheme of things, an attack on a country was an act of war, no matter who launched it or what happened next. Now, the Obama administration claims that if the adversary cannot fight back, there is no war.
It follows that adversaries of the United States have a new motive for, if not equaling us, then at least doing us some damage. Only then will they be accorded the legal protections (such as they are) of authorized war. Without that, they are at the mercy of the whim of the president.
The War Powers Resolution permits the president to initiate military operations only when the nation is directly attacked, when there is “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” The Obama administration, however, justifies its actions in the Libyan intervention precisely on the grounds that there is no threat to the invading forces, much less the territories of the United States.
There is a parallel here with the administration of George W. Bush on the issue of torture (though not, needless to say, a parallel between the Libyan war itself, which I oppose but whose merits can be reasonably debated, and torture, which was wholly reprehensible). President Bush wanted the torture he was ordering not to be considered torture, so he arranged to get lawyers in the Justice department to write legal-sounding opinions excluding certain forms of torture, such as waterboarding, from the definition of the word. Those practices were thenceforward called “enhanced interrogation techniques.”
Now, Obama wants his Libyan war not to be a war and so has arranged to define a certain kind of war -- the American-casualty-free kind -- as not war (though without even the full support of his own lawyers). Along with Libya, a good English word -- war -- is under attack.
In these semantic operations of power upon language, a word is separated from its commonly accepted meaning. The meanings of words are one of the few common grounds that communities naturally share. When agreed meanings are challenged, no one can use the words in question without stirring up spurious “debates,” as happened with the word torture. For instance, mainstream news organizations, submissive to George Bush’s decisions on the meanings of words, stopped calling waterboarding torture and started calling it other things, including “enhanced interrogation techniques,” but also “harsh treatment,” “abusive practices,” and so on.
Will the news media now stop calling the war against Libya a war? No euphemism for war has yet caught on, though soon after launching its Libyan attacks, an administration official proposed the phrase “kinetic military action” and more recently, in that 32-page report, the term of choice was “limited military operations.” No doubt someone will come up with something catchier soon.
How did the administration twist itself into this pretzel? An interview that Charlie Savage and Mark Landler of the New York Times held with State Department legal advisor Harold Koh sheds at least some light on the matter. Many administrations and legislators have taken issue with the War Powers Resolution, claiming it challenges powers inherent in the presidency. Others, such as Bush administration Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, have argued that the Constitution’s plain declaration that Congress “shall declare war” does not mean what most readers think it means, and so leaves the president free to initiate all kinds of wars.
Koh has long opposed these interpretations -- and in a way, even now, he remains consistent. Speaking for the administration, he still upholds Congress’s power to declare war and the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution. “We are not saying the president can take the country into war on his own,” he told the Times. “We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”
In a curious way, then, a desire to avoid challenge to existing law has forced assault on the dictionary. For the Obama administration to go ahead with a war lacking any form of Congressional authorization, it had to challenge either law or the common meaning of words. Either the law or language had to give.
It chose language.
Jonathan Schell is the Doris M. Shaffer Fellow at The Nation Institute, and a Senior Lecturer at Yale University. He is the author of several books, including The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will of the People. To listen to Timothy MacBain’s latest TomCast audio interview in which Schell discusses war and the imperial presidency, click here, or download it to your iPod here.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich: 10 Reasons to Oppose the War in Libya
I followed the link to National Review Online and read Yoo's (absurd) piece. What I found interesting is that virtually all of the comments, and I am sure that they were made by staunch conservatives, found Yoo's reasoning fatally flawed ("Mr. Yoo engages in silly constitutional acrobatics..." e.g.).
Can you say with any certainty that the number of dead from the Libyan regime squashing a rather limited rebellion, is more than the number dead as a result of our actions? How much longer can we as a nation continue to go around committing Genocide in every oil-rich country we can get our drones into?
Ignore the humanitarian reasons for war. They are propagandist. War's are faught for wealth and resources, and the geopolitical history of the U.S. empire provides no support for the notion that we care one bit about human rights. Its a preposterous claim, it requires an ignorance of our own history to believe it, and we are better off thinking critically about the never-ending wars we are in, and why, than submissively accepting the infliction of terror on all the World's inhabitant as a dying empire attempts to take everyone down with it.
Standing on the sidelines watching a dictator unleash the military on the civilian population for nonviolent protest is not following American values.
I would be one of the first to ask for outside help if Americas military was turned on Americans, and I would hope we got that help.
Should the Republican controlled House have allowed debate and a vote?
Should the so called left berate Obama for cutting the intransigent Republicans out of the loop for trying to score political points with national security matters that used to be nonpartisan?
We can not go to war with every dictator oppressing his people, but nor should we stick our heads in the sand because Republicans want a political advantage.
Debating presidential powers seems like a serious disconnect from reality.
You should have omitted the last three words. But then, you're from Yale, the school that
excels in obfuscating clarity in the English language. The rest speaks for itself.
Oh wait, we tried that before. Didn't work so well for us then, and this will not work so well for us now.
I am continually insulted by politicians and lawyers that don't think we are smart enough to understand English. This article points that out beautifully.
However, The bottom line is that until we are energy independent we will always find some ruse or semantic out for our international bullying of middle east countries. I am all for humanitarian help, but I hardly see how dropping drones could be considered by ANYBODY as humanitarian.
I think we are further along in the renewable energy than most think. I can not believe we are not able to fuel ourselves more efficiently without fossil fuels. I absolutely agree that Obama, and every other politician out there, is dependent on major funding from oil companies, and until every penny from every drop of oil is wrung from this earth, costs be damned, we will have no way of ever actually knowing how close to alternative energy we are. There is just too much money at stake.
I also believe we are one of the biggest terrorists nations out there. we just cloak ourselves in something other than religious furor (at least in our undeclared wars on other nations) so it is called humanitarianism instead.
The clever monsters have seen that that undermining the law is easily done by undoing the meaning of words on which the law is based.
It's become quite common.
Unfortunately the courts themselves are participating in this atrocity.
action". It's state sponsored terrorism, and as usual the United States are the international
terrorists, but nothing new there. As the worlds most vicious and soul-less terrorists we aren't
trying to bring democracy, real democracy on anyone, we are trying to destroy it. The mission
in Libya, like all the terrorist attacks we are responsible for all over the middle east is just simple
armed robbery. Libya has 144 tonnes of physical gold in their national bank so we, naturally
want to steal it. We also want to stop Ghadafi from building an African trading block based on
his gold backed Dinar. That would make it more difficult for us to loot other nations in the region
so we want to steal his "collateral". Make more sense now??
from the MSM. But I guess that the whole idea isn't it?
U.S. citizens will be paying the price for these crimes for the next 100 years. I wouldn't go planning a holiday anywhere outside the continental U.S. if I was unfortunate enough to be American.
If by words we are at war that then demands congressional action. We have not been at war for decades. So we are killing people as long as the definition stated by the courts does not make it a war.