Re: "What IS the difference....?"
Between euphemistic new age politically correct cover-you-ass and pass the buck limp Liberal MUMBO-JUMBO... and the rigid, disciplined requirement of a Formal Declaration of War?
A) Constitutionality.
B) Unified Public Support.
C) International recognition on the basis of formal Treaties.
D) A certain lack of obsequious dilly-dallying from craven politicians....
In other words: Discipline, Honesty, respect for Constitutional Democratic government and rule of law, and a much greater (statistically speaking) chance for SUCCESS not FAILURE.
Those are the differences, as I see them.
=========================================================
en.wikipedia.org
...Undeclared wars
See also: War Powers Clause, War Powers Resolution, and War Powers Act
In most democratic nations, a declaration of war customarily must be passed by the legislature. In the United States there is no format required for declaration(s) of war. The term "Declaration of War" is not, in fact, mentioned by the United States Constitution. Instead the Constitution states, "Congress shall have the power to ... declare War, ..." without defining the form such declarations will take. Therefore, many have argued congressionally passed authorizations to use military force are "Declarations of War." That concept has never been tested in the American judicial system. Some, such as Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), argue that an explicit declaration of war is, in fact, a Constitutional requirement.[2]
After the United Nations action in Korea, a number of democratic governments pursued usually limited warfare by characterizing them as something else, such as a "military action" or "armed response." This was most notably used by the United States in its more than decade-long involvement in Vietnam. Nations such as France, which had extensive colonies in which its military provided order, continued to intervene in their former colonies' affairs as police actions since they could no longer be deemed internal conflicts. The Falklands War was also undeclared, although an "exclusion zone" around the Falkland Islands was.
Not declaring war provides a way to circumvent constitutional safeguards against the executive declaring war, and also, in some cases, to avoid feeling bound by the established laws of war. Furthermore, the legislative branch benefits politically by passing the burden to the executive, for if a war were to go badly, the public's wrath would be directed against the executive and not the legislative. Not using the word "war" is also seen as being more public relations-friendly. For these reasons, governments have generally ceased to issue declarations of war, instead describing their actions by euphemisms such as "police action" or "authorized use of force."
[edit] Authorized use of force
Frequently used as an alternative to a declaration of war, authorized use of force is often used to avoid traditional barriers to the initiation of combat. Typically a full declaration must be ratified by various legislative bodies, but 'authorized use of force' may allow an elected head of state to directly initiate forceful action without further consultation. In addition, with declarations of war being increasingly regulated by international bodies, 'authorized use of force' can often be used to avoid some of the negative consequences of a declaration.
Authorized use of force is relatively common among democratic societies. The United States, for instance, has been directly involved in military activities in every decade of the latter half of the twentieth century yet has not declared war formally since World War II. For instance, in the case of the Vietnam and Iraq Wars, Congress authorized the use of force rather than putting forth a true declaration of war. As noted above, there is a dispute over the constitutionality of this legislative procedure.
[edit] Declarations of war during World War II.... |
