I was listening to a debate on Iraq between Wayne Allard and some Democrat the other night on Greta's show. While the Dem was against going to war, he made the point that if were are going to, we should formally declare it. Allard disagreed, with the excuse that it would have implications for insurance companies. He didn't elaborate on the explanation.

Greta asked him if the very notion of formal declarations of war had become obsolete, which I thought was a good question. He essentially said, yes, or at least maybe.

Does this bother anyone else? Will we never again actually declare war on anyone, under any circumstances, even as we wage it? If so, why not?

I caught W. Buckley Jr. on some news show the other day, exploring this very issue. He had a explanation that seemed to make sense:
(paraphrasing)
"Since the beginning of the Cold War, the notion of declaring war has become obsolete. The declaration of war implies putting all available might (including nuclear weapons) toward the desctruction of the enemy."
It appears that our voluntary limitations might require a re-definition of "declaring war", possibly into multiple categories.

*assumes a Miracle Max accent* We're only -mostly- declaring war...

The formal declaration of war, I think, is really more of a diplomatic instrument. We being the biggest dogs in the yard, everybody's pretty much already aware that this is going to be a war; failing to declare it formally won't make it not so.

I don't think that, if there is one, the war in Iraq will be limited in any way. We may not use all of the weapons at our disposal, but that will only because we will have no need to, not because we feel in any way constrained in the sense we did in the Cold War.

The War Powers Act is one important reason we don't declare war anymore. Congress believes that they should have the power to review use of force, and the White House accepts this as a de facto arrangement (the Act was passed without Nixon's signature, and most provisions have never been challenged in the USSC; neither side wants to lose what they have).

My sense was that the war powers act was a response to the fact that we had stopped declaring war, and were intead waging war by other names with no Congressional approval. It was Congress' way to get back in the loop.

I don't see how it can be construed as a reason not to declare war, or if so, that was an unintended consequence.

If a congressional resolution isn't a declaration of war then what is? What is the difference between " we declare war on nation x" or "we authorize the Prez to use the armed forces against nation x". Same result.

There's the domestic side to the "declaring war means using nukes" coin. We now accept wartime dissent that would previously have been considered treason. (A march on the Pentagon in 1943?) Some of us would have a harder time accepting that if there were a formal declaration of war.

And this leaves us somewhere to go, in case things get serious enough. It's a dodge, but a useful one.

It's my understanding that a formal declaration of the "war on terrorism" might require that such things as the 9/11 attacks would no longer be covered by current insurance policies, which are exempted from paying claims for acts of war as part of the standard boilerplate.

Seems to me if the formal declaration of war does affect insurance claims, the declaration could stipulate that the state of war exists "from X date" so as not to include the 9/11/01 attacks.

Steven den Beste has made the same point on his blog (USS Clueless) that "Dr. Clausewitz" makes above:

"Yet another leftist rhetorical device has been to actually demand that Congress pass something that is labeled "Declaration of War" or includes the phrase "declare war", in order to comply with Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, which says (in part):

The Congress shall have Power...
...To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

As a strict constitutional principle, what this requires is that Congress authorize major military actions, but it does not actually mandate anything that says "Declaration of War" on it. Congress has this power, and Congress also gets to decide the form it takes, and right now it takes the form of an invocation of the War Powers Act, which formally appears here in Section 3(C)(1). Irrespective of the wording, this bill is a "declaration of war" and legally fulfills that constitutional requirement (or will, once the Senate passes it)."

I dunno but whenever a nation takes that step to 'declaring war', to me, that implies that all your assets go into waging that war. Everyone gets out the war banners. Everyone either enlists into the military or gets a job that somehow benefits the war effort. All your materials and production of assets goes into that effort. If America were to gear up to her full potential do this in the present day we would have so much whoop ass potential that it would be overkill by most any stretch, and thats not including the use of nuclear armaments. So, I think that formally declaring war is a need that rarely has to be met. I can think of a scenario where all of Europe bandied together and started launching attacks at us. Then, that would definently be an instance where a national call to arms would have to made and everything would go into smacking them back into the 17th century. Short of the "angry Europe" situation, the need for politicians to undertake the act of declaring war is either mostly unneeded or just not feasible.

Since there is not, as noted above, any strict wording requirement for a declaration of war, congress much prefers the way it is now done.
A treaty is the law of the land and so, as in Korea and Vietnam, congress chose to be silent on the de facto wars, so as to allow a much wider field of criticism.

I think Bob Hawkins doesn't know enough history. Yes, a march on the Pentagon in 1943 possibly would have been called treasonous. Dissent during WWII was quite rare.

In other wars, however, such unanimity was lacking:

• Tories during the Revolution.
  
• Major dissent during the War of 1812. Some people thought the North might revolt.
  
• Draft riots (not protests -- actual riots) in the North during the Civil War
  
• Significant resistance to the draft in WWI. Some 50% filed for exemption.
  
• The growing unpopularity of the Korean War. Protest demonstrations didn't occur, but it did become a significant political issue. Eisenhower vowed to go to Korea to end the conflict during his 1952 campaign.
  
• And, of course, Vietnam.
  

Americans have traditionally been a bit ambivalent about war. Citizens in democracies usually are.

Even among those of us who support war with Iraq there are those of us who don't look forward to the conflict and wish there were better alternatives.

"Even among those of us who support war with Iraq there are those of us who don't look forward to the conflict and wish there were better alternatives."

Something many anti-war types don't seem to grasp. Some of them appear to believe we're all expecting it to be over in a few minutes with nary a shot fired nor missile launched.

I saw one poll -- one poll -- that showed a majority of Americans supported doing what needed to be done even if it resulted in heavy American casualties. Nobody has asked that question again, and the cynical side of me doesn't bother to wonder why.