Stardate 20010912.1801 (On Screen): NATO has decided that Article 5 applies, which states that an attack on any member nation is to be considered an attack on them all. Yesterday's bombing is now officially an "attack" and as a result the US now has the ability to call on NATO resources if it needs to. Damned right, too. For fifty years the US has contributed enormous resources to NATO and helped out other nations there in plenty of ways. Now that we might need them they
damned well better be there for us.
Meanwhile, Congress is considering a formal Declaration of War under Article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution. It may be surprising to learn that I have grave misgivings about that. It's not that I don't want the US to use military might to punish whoever is responsible for this and anyone who protects them or gives them aid -- I do. But this isn't like having a war with a nation. This is going to be a low level struggle for years with an occasional burst of activity, as the US seeks out and tries to annihilate a series of small cells and encampments all over the world. It may take upwards of ten years. The problem with it isn't starting it, it's ending it. How do you know when the war is over? A state of War has to formally end sometime, usually with an armistice or peace treaty; I don't like the idea of the US having a formal state of War indefinitely, and it's not obvious just who we'd sign such a treaty with. I would prefer something more limited: a renewable grant of power to the President to spend funds and use military might in this area, subject to consultation with Congressional leaders before any major operation: in other words, a slightly enhanced version of the "War Powers Act". (discuss)
