Could be because the Saudi government invaded none of its neighbors, unlike the Saddam regime, that the Saudi's were our allies in ousting Iraq from Kuwait, that the Saudi's have cooperated with us in rooting out Al Queda from their territory, and that the Saudi's, for all their manifest failings, have not filled mass graves with their own citizens.
Donald R. McClarey | 12.29.05 - 10:12 pm | #

As a proponent of human rights and an interventionist, this is one of the big beefs I have with the current conservative warhawk movement. These were the same people who, ten years ago, were scoffing at the idea of intervening to stop genocides. Realpolitik! they kept crying out. Human rights abuses? Bah: must not disrupt business or waste America's time and resources on the security and violence problems of others!

Ok, fair enough.

Then 9/11 happened. And many of these people appeared to "get it!" Security problems and disorder in the rest of world can blow back on us.. Genocide and instability spread, and hurt us all, not just in selfish ways, but in our human and moral dignity. Suddenly, the very same group of people who had said that international human rights were hogwash were lecturing ME on their importance and centrality to this or that tactical move in the war on terror. Ok, I can take that, as long as this is real change.

The problem, I don't think it is real. If it were real, then it would extend beyond the politicaly convienient. To be fair, I think some warhawk conservatives really DO get it now. But many others either aren't really thinking through the implications of these values (i.e., they seem great when justifying this or that action that they want to do, but there is no thought given to how these principles might affect other situations or nations) or I doubt will stick with them after they cease to be politically expedient.
plunge | 12.29.05 - 10:20 pm | #

I thought it was 16 of the 19...
HokiePundit | Homepage | 12.29.05 - 10:55 pm | #

Just great. Donald McClarey wants to send U.S. troops to other countries that do bad things to people, but not to countries that do bad things (but not quite so bad things) to people but cooperate with us in stopping other countries that do bad things to people. plunge, on the other hand, wants to send U.S. troops to stop bad people from doing bad things to people everywhere. There is just no limitation on his generous willingness to invade the world with U.S. troops in name of his version of human rights and/or democracy or something.

Neither gives any thought to the actual U.S. Constitution (as opposed to a fanciful reading thereof), which acknowledges war only in national defense. Guys, form your own Abraham Lincoln brigades to "seek monsters abroad to slay" and leave the rest of out of your private crusades please.
Celine | 12.29.05 - 11:40 pm | #

In response to Mark's question, maybe it's because of the deal with the devil which means the US turns a blind eye to the wahhabi death cult in return for an unlimited supply of cheap oil to fuel all those SUVs. (And please, if anybody responds to this, please do not mention Michael Moore. I couldn't care less about Michael Moore). I have friends who visit all kinds of places (Nigeria, Somalia, Central Asia), and they all say the same thing-- wherever muslim extremism rears its ugly head, Saudi money is behind it.
Tony A | 12.30.05 - 12:00 am | #

Neither gives any thought to the actual U.S. Constitution . . . which acknowledges war only in national defense.

Oh yeah, I remember that clause in the constitution. It's right there with the separation of church and state, substantive due process, and the right to privacy.
paul | Homepage | 12.30.05 - 12:34 am | #

Hey, you know what? Scratch war. At the very least it might have been nice to use the influence of the US to object to ongoing genocides like East Timor. Maybe, not sell them so many of our weapons at bargain prices to use on their own people. Or turn a blind eye to every last evil thing China does. Or suddenly forget that democracy is important when chumming it up with the Saudis.

But no. You see, we should just let the Taliban (a mess we helped create) run totally rampant, killing and supressing women, executing Christians, destroying their country. No wait! Democracy! Nation-building!
plunge | 12.30.05 - 3:56 am | #

The answer to Mark's question is much simpler: It's not clear that bringing down the Saudi government is in the long-term interests of the defense of the U.S. To my mind, the deposition of Saddam was in the long-term U.S. interest, and justified by the fact that the U.S. was already in a state of de facto war with Iraq (which war was in turn earlier justified by the invasion of Kuwait).
Fr. DJ | 12.30.05 - 7:49 am | #

I should add that implicit accusations of hypocrisy -- e.g., "How come we don't hear about...?" -- are rather tiresome in public discourse. They often involve telescoping another's arguments to some narrow principle, and then reducing that argument ad absurdum. Most of us are vulnerable to such cheap shots, especially if one chooses to listen only to the slogans and sound bites that are thrown out in defense of our favorite causes. More interesting are those challenges and criticisms that engage the deepest, not the shallowest, thinking in support of the causes.
Fr. DJ | 12.30.05 - 7:56 am | #

Yes, let's make the perfect the enemy of the good -- can't correct one evil unless we set out to correct all. And if you use one means to stop a particular evil you cannot use any other means to address other, arguably analogous evils. Used military force to stop the Nazis? Well, now you have to invade the Soviet Union if you're going to be morally consistent! Yawn. Of course, the answer is that the Bush Administration believes that it eventually can change the entire region, including Saudi Arabia, by establishing democracy in Iraq. Pull one thread, knock down the Berlin Wall, etc.
Ed Graham | 12.30.05 - 9:09 am | #

paul:

The Preamble of the Constitution states that the Union was established to "establish the common defence." Section 8 provides that, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence . . . ."

Search in vain for any provision that provides any authority to conduct wars of national liberation abroad. You are the one reading your policy preferences like the "right of privacy" and "separation of church in state" into the Constitution. So much for neocon allegiance to strict constructionism, originalism, and textualism. They do get in the way of goodies like interventionist imperialism and National Greatness.

plunge: Great. Then we'll have nodisagreement.
Celine | 12.30.05 - 9:23 am | #

Aren't some of you guys spinning a little bit too hard? The Bush doctrine, as I understood it, was to treat terrorists and states that harbor and fund them as enemies of the United States. Saudi Arabia is clearly in that category on both counts. Yet it is not treated as an enemy but as a friend of the United States. Why?

One cannot legitimately appeal to the first Iraq War as a just cause in Iraq II, because the former was a war fought under U.N. auspices and authority. Therefore the U.N. has the authority to determine whether its own cease-fire agreement has been breached to an extent that requires resumption of hostilities. By this, I do not mean we need to have U.N. authorization to defend ourselves; rather, I mean one cannot simultaneously appeal to U.N. authority and reject U.N. authority when justifying some action.

I don't see, either, how it is making the "perfect the enemy of the good" to question our posture toward Saudi Arabia and compare and contrast with Iraq. Even if one accepts that Iraq was involved with al Quaeda (the evidence is ambiguous, right?) it is clear that Saudi Arabia is vastly more so. We are speaking of a single evil and a single policy doctrine that supposedly demanded we invade one country. When it is shown that the same policy makes a far greater case for invading the country left intact than it does for the one we invaded, are we not to ask why?

Someone suggested Saudi Arabia has been more cooperative than Iraq and is more likely to be changed peacefully than Iraq. That's a lot better argument, if true, but I'd like to see some evidence that it is true. Saudi Arabia is still, as far as I can tell, the leading bankroller of Islamic terrorism and still one of the world's leading human rights abusers. Have the madrassas been shut down? Has the flow of money been stopped? What evidence is there that the regime is changing, and what would such change consist of? The answer cannot even be simply that it becomes more democratic, since given the attitudes apparently prevalent in that country, democracy would actually make it more likely to spread terrorism.

You all may be tired of hearing the question about Saudi Arabia, but that doesn't make the question invalid. Perhaps the reason it is tiresome is that it is so very difficult to make sense of in light of the administration's stated policy. How on Earth is it possible that Saudi Arabia, which produced most of the 9/11 terrorists and funded bin Laden, didn't even make the "Axis of Evil"?

The Saudi Arabia question is usually raised by partisan haters of the president. That doesn't mean it isn't a good question.
Max | 12.30.05 - 9:49 am | #

Celine--how is liberating Iraq from a tryant enemy of the United States inconsistent with securing "the common defense"?
Ed Graham | 12.30.05 - 9:49 am | #

Could be because the Saudi government invaded none of its neighbors, unlike the Saddam regime,/i>

How do you think Saudi Arabia was created in the first place? It was by the invasion and annexation of the Hejaz (then ruled by the Hashemite family) by the Saudi-ruled Nejd.

(Or perhaps you'd argue that that was ancient history. In which case I'd say that, by 2002, the invasion of Iran (which we connived at, by the way) and Kuwait were also ancient history, for all practical purposes.)
Seamus | 12.30.05 - 9:58 am | #

that the Saudi's [sic] were our allies in ousting Iraq from Kuwait

Much like Saddam was our quasi-ally in fighting the mullahs of Iran.
Seamus | 12.30.05 - 10:00 am | #

Used military force to stop the Nazis? Well, now you have to invade the Soviet Union if you're going to be morally consistent!

Someone remind me of when the Soviet Union declared war on us, as Germany did on December 11, 1941.
Seamus | 12.30.05 - 10:04 am | #

Celine: You have got to be kidding me. First of all, the preamble is a general statement of principle, not a limiting doctrine of how we can go to war. Your selective reading of the Constituion is mind boggling, but here is the more appropriate passage regarding Congressional Powers under Article 1, Section 8:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; Seems like a pretty broad grant of power to me. Note it doesn't contain your limiting clause of "only in the national defense." BTW, Were the Barbary Wars - conducted a real strict constructionist, Thomas Jefferson, in the national defense?

You are the one reading your policy preferences like the "right of privacy" and "separation of church in state" into the Constitution.

Are you really that dim-witted? That's a saracastic reference to the fact that said things are NOT in fact part of the Constitution.

So much for neocon allegiance to strict constructionism, originalism, and textualism.

Again, merely more evidence that you're really not that quick on the uptake, are you. I mean, "neocon" strict interpretation? There are probably about at least three different things wrong with that statement (I'm not a neocon; I'm an originalist, not a strict constructionist; there's nothing inherently "neoconservative" about strict constructionism).

But thank you for playing constitutional interpretation, Celine. We're sorry you don't really don't know that much about the Constitution or about political theory, but we have some lovely parting gifts.
paul | Homepage | 12.30.05 - 10:06 am | #

Max--Saudi Arabia and Iraq do not present the same problem. Elements of Saudi Arabia, even elements with real power in the Saudi government, may be enemies of the United States and support terror, but I would like to see you try to prove that Saudi Arabia, as official state policy, supports terrorism as Iraq under Saddam Hussein did. On the other hand, the Saudi government has routinely cooperated with the United States in the war on terror and has made some baby steps toward democratic reform. I'm not whitewashing Saudi Arabia. It needs to change and, as they say, "faster please." But it is not Iraq under Saddam and there are sound reasons for hoping to Saudi Arabia can change peacefully. There was no such hope for Iraq under Saddam, particularly with his charming boys waiting in the wings.

As for making the perfect the enemy of the good, my point was simply that if the Administration's treatment of Saudi Arabia is inconsistent with "the Bush Doctrine" (and I don't believe it is), that does not prove that the Doctrine is imprudent or that its application of that Doctrine in Iraq was wrong or mistaken. That society fails to apprehend and punish all murderers hardly demonstrates that laws against murder are impractical or that punishing particular murderers (when others escape punishment) is unjust.
Ed Graham | 12.30.05 - 10:10 am | #

BTW, Were the Barbary Wars - conducted a real strict constructionist, Thomas Jefferson, in the national defense?

Uh, yes. The pirates were attacking Americans, remember?
Seamus | 12.30.05 - 10:13 am | #

Seamus--you may have missed the Cold War that followed, but the Soviet Union committed many acts of war against the United States (such as espionage, blockading Berlin, etc.) and, of course, enslaved large patches of Europe. But you make the point for me. There were differences between Soviet and Nazi behavior toward the United States, even if the character of the regimes were morally indistinguishable. Those differences -- as well as some pretty significant facts on the ground -- justified different approaches. The United States used different means, total war against the Nazis and containment against the Soviets, to combat similar evils. That it used different means does not prove that the United States acted inconsistently.
Ed Graham | 12.30.05 - 10:20 am | #

"BTW, Were the Barbary Wars - conducted a real strict constructionist, Thomas Jefferson, in the national defense?

Uh, yes. The pirates were attacking Americans, remember?"

Rather like Iraq was attacking American planes in the no-fly zones?

"Used military force to stop the Nazis? Well, now you have to invade the Soviet Union if you're going to be morally consistent!

Someone remind me of when the Soviet Union declared war on us, as Germany did on December 11, 1941."

And we wouldn't have declared war on Nazi Germany without Hitler's bone-headed declaration of war on us? Please!

"that the Saudi's [sic] were our allies in ousting Iraq from Kuwait

Much like Saddam was our quasi-ally in fighting the mullahs of Iran."

Thanks for catching my mistake in regard to "Saudis". As for your comment regarding the Iran-Iraq war, a better description of American policy was summed up in Kissenger's observation that it was a pity that they both couldn't lose.
Donald R. McClarey | 12.30.05 - 10:23 am | #

"But thank you for playing constitutional interpretation, Celine. We're sorry you don't really don't know that much about the Constitution or about political theory, but we have some lovely parting gifts."

Thank you Paul! You saved me the labor of explaining that Celine's exegesis on the Constitution has no basis in reality.
Donald R. McClarey | 12.30.05 - 10:25 am | #

And thank you, Donald, for your explanation of the Barbary Wars. They were attacking Americans - in their seas, they weren't coming over here.

If you want to explore further, at least about half of our wars would have to be considered unconstitutional according to this doctrine. The Mexican War - was that in our national defense? Korea? The Speanish Ameircan War? World War I? You can probably really stretch to defend any of those wars on the grounds that they were in our national defense, but you can do the same for Iraq. Heck, you can do the same for just about any war, when you get down to it.
paul | Homepage | 12.30.05 - 10:31 am | #

Ed, I think you are presenting a very narrow understanding of how a state supports terrorism. You have here two states. One of them is under international sanctions, no-fly zones and severe international scrutiny, which has limited official ties to al Qaeda and, from government funds, gives $25,000 to the family of each suicide bomber in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. The other is a member of the world community in good standing, is exceedingly wealthy and is rife with madrassas spreading a terrorist mentality (which its students jumped into planes and put into practice on Sept. 11) and with billionaires pouring truckloads of money into terrorist organizations. So this poses two questions. First, which is the greater threat to American security? Second, which government is more complicit with terror: the one with limited contacts with terrorists and minor funding of them or the one which either won't or can't stop the massive production and funding of terrorism within its own borders and which may or may not have sealed a devil's bargain with the terrorists and their sympathizers to maintain their power?

Thanks for clarifying your point about the perfect and the good, but I don't think it's very strong as reformulated. To follow your analogy, what we're arguing about here is not whether we can stop all murderers but on which murderer we ought to expend our resources to stop first.

That said, I agree with you that even a bad decision in priorities does not itself make the Bush Doctrine, or even the invasion of Iraq, illicit. It might make the latter imprudent, which is the point of the argument. And it might call into question the sincerity with which the doctrine is held by those who claim it.

I would say what makes the Bush Doctrine illicit is its willingness to engage in pre-emptive war even when no threat is imminent, a policy which I don't believe can be squared with Catholic beliefs about just war. But that's been debated here enough already.
Max | 12.30.05 - 10:36 am | #

Simple... obviously we already had an established military foothold in Iraq. And if it wasn't this excuse for proceeding on into Baghdad, there would have, by now, been some other reason to finally finish off what the first Gulf War began. How much longer would we have continued the fly overs being more often provocatively attacked in zones forbidden by such activity by the Iraqies; how much longer would the so-called weapons inspectors been told to simply "go away" with no stronger response? Somehow an invasion would have happened, but probably with more foundation and therefore less need for huge committees inspecting our faulty intelligence. And Afghanistan was simply a wild west atmosphere open for invasion with not much objection by the world. First President Bush left us with a real mess over there; an unfinished job when it could have been done without all the dilly dallying. Our now desires for immediate peace and tranquility after some kind of democratization far exceed the makeup of the community of this generation.
Chris K | 12.30.05 - 10:38 am | #

Max--I don't disagree that Saudi Arabia is a problem. It may even be, in a real sense, a larger problem, as you suggest. But that does not prove that a military invasion is the only response that is consistent with the Bush Doctrine. I would also note that Mecca and Medina are located in Saudi Arabia. If you really want to radicalize Muslims or start a general war with Islam, invading Saudi Arabia would be a good start. Now, I have to get back to work.
Ed Graham | 12.30.05 - 10:55 am | #

But that does not prove that a military invasion is the only response that is consistent with the Bush Doctrine.

Agreed. It remains a question, I think, whether our response to Saudi Arabia as it is can be squared with the Bush Doctrine.

I would also note that Mecca and Medina are located in Saudi Arabia. If you really want to radicalize Muslims or start a general war with Islam, invading Saudi Arabia would be a good start.

Yes, absolutely. It's the best argument of all for not invading Saudi Arabia. This seems to me like it would fall under the "serious prospects for success" and "must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated" aspects of Just War Theory. Similar concerns can be raised about Iraq, too, but that's, again, another conversation.
Max | 12.30.05 - 11:05 am | #

Mark, do you support invading Saudi Arabia? No? I didn't think so, so stop make the case for fog.
Chris-2-4 | 12.30.05 - 11:23 am | #

One reason why the US has not invaded Saudi Arabia is probably that the Saudis have spread their money very extensively around Washington - one might say have bought it from top to bottom; see http://www.energybulletin.net/916.html. Invasion might well not be the best response to the Saudis, but that does not mean that just accepting them as allies is a good response either, since as the mainspring of Islamic fundamentalism they are a greater threat than Iraq ever was.
John L | 12.30.05 - 11:48 am | #

Well, why was it OK to send Marines into Haiti "because of the refugees" (Not "genocide"), while ordering the Coast Guard to act as Castro's slave-catchers.
I am shocked, SHOCKED, to learn that politicians in power are inconsistent!

And plunge, it was not just "conservatives" who flipflopped in 2001. I gaped in amazement as the sort of people on on September 10th had been calling ME a "fascist imperialist warmonger" began chirping "But we have to trust our leaders!"
"Uh, but those were 'our leaders' thirty years ago. You were singing a different tune then."
"But we have to protect ourselves!"
"So why didn't we have to protect ourselves against Communists?"

Of course, now I am a "PC thug" because I have reservations about summary execution for Riding While Suspicious-Looking.
Will | Homepage | 12.30.05 - 1:19 pm | #

Mark,

Are you going to make the case for war against Saudi Arabia?

I suspect not. If that's correct, I would love to see your reasons for opposition to an invasion of Saudi Arabia against a hypothetical Bush call for war.

Peace be with you,
Bob
Bob L. | Homepage | 12.30.05 - 1:30 pm | #

"They were attacking Americans - in their seas, they weren't coming over here.

Baloney. The Barbary pirates attacked Christians (including Americans) on the high seas, not "their seas." At times, they even went out into the Atlantic, and were known to go as far as Ireland in their raiding for slaves and booty.

(One of the modern-day successors to the Barbary pirates, Col. Gaddafy, tried to assert that a large part of the Mediterranean was part of "their seas" when he drew the "line of death" claiming the Gulf of Sidra as Libyan territorial waters. Brave but foolish Libyan fighter pilots tried to enforce Gaddafy's claims by attacking U.S. Navy planes that were flying over the Gulf, and were blown out of the air for their pains.

Note that, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Pirates), "Raids by Barbary pirates on *Western Europe* did not cease until 1816, when a Royal Navy raid, assisted by six Dutch vessels, destroyed the port of Algiers and its fleet of Barbary ships" [emphasis added].

And we wouldn't have declared war on Nazi Germany without Hitler's bone-headed declaration of war on us? Please!

No, we wouldn't have. Public opinion was overwhelmingly against getting involved in the war. FDR had even gotten re-elected by promising that he'd stay out (sorta like Wilson in 1916 and LBJ in 1964 -- there's a reason Bob Dole spoke of "Democrat wars" in his 1976 debate).
Seamus | 12.30.05 - 5:24 pm | #

The USSR and USA never declared war on each other, but the USSR certainly declared war on a UK (and later USA) ally -- namely, Poland. It just goes to show you that politics is generally a prudential discipline, and one involving enormous complexity. Consistency is a great value for domestic law enforcement, but it has never played much of a role in international politics.
Fr. DJ | 12.30.05 - 5:33 pm | #

The USSR and USA never declared war on each other, but the USSR certainly declared war on a UK (and later USA) ally -- namely, Poland.

The Soviet Union didn't formally declare war on Poland (at least not in 1939 -- they may have done so back in 1920). They simply announced that they were intervening in order to restore order in Eastern Poland. Of course, no one should have been fooled, least of all the British. Strangely enough, there was some sentiment in the UK for declaring war on the Soviet Union in order to assist Finland during the Winter War of 1939-40, but nothing came of that. Indeed, when Stalin (despite all his intentions) found himself on the same side in the war as Britain, he was somehow able to persuade Britain to declare war *against* Finland, which seems pretty raw.
Seamus | 12.30.05 - 6:22 pm | #

As for your comment regarding the Iran-Iraq war, a better description of American policy was summed up in Kissenger's observation that it was a pity that they both couldn't lose.

I'll buy that (but of course Kissinger wasn't making U.S. Middle East policy in those days). Much as Sen. Harry Truman suggested, the day after Hitler invaded Russia, that "If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances. Neither of them thinks anything of their pledged word."
Seamus | 12.30.05 - 6:27 pm | #

italics off.
Seamus | 12.30.05 - 6:28 pm | #

No no... North Korea first.
A^2CB | 12.30.05 - 6:51 pm | #

"No, we wouldn't have. Public opinion was overwhelmingly against getting involved in the war."

I disagree Seamus. The U.S. was already in an informal shooting war with Germany in the Atlantic by December of 41 and had been so for about six months. If FDR had to ask Congress for a declaration of war against Germany, I doubt if 10% of either chamber would have voted against it.
Donald R. McClarey | 12.30.05 - 8:31 pm | #

Seamus,

Yes, yes, I know. For my original point to hold, it suffices for a "declaration of war" to initiate more or less unrestrained hostilities. This the US and USSR never did, but the US did establish a state of war with Iraq in 1991. This state of war was suspended only temporarily by an armistice, with whose terms Iraq did not consistently comply. From at least this angle, the US had moral and legal justification for resuming hostilities with Iraq, without having to create grand new theories like an alleged "Bush doctrine." Thus there's nothing necessarily inconsistent about advocating war with Iraq while remaining circumspect about Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, North Korea, or whatever other hobgoblin happens to occasion the most recent charge, "If you invade Iraq, how come you don't invade Erehwon?"
Fr. DJ | 12.30.05 - 10:38 pm | #

I disagree Seamus. The U.S. was already in an informal shooting war with Germany in the Atlantic by December of 41 and had been so for about six months.

That "informal shooting war" was not full-scale hostilities, but something FDR was hoping would look like a series of unrelated "incidents" (rather like the Panay incident in Shanghai) and would provoke Hitler into going to war. FDR followed that policy precisely because he knew that Congress and the American people would never tolerate an initiation of hostilities against Germany, so he had to make it look as if Germany was the one starting it. Of course, Hitler fell right into FDR's trap and declared war on the U.S. on December 11, 1941.
Seamus | 01.01.06 - 10:48 pm | #

I might mention further that in November 1941, FDR was able to persuade Congress to amend the Neutrality Act to allow U.S. merchant ships to be armed, to enter combat zones, and to call at the ports of belligerents. The vote was 50-37 in the Senate and 212-194 in the House. Since Roosevelt barely succeeded in getting those amendments through Congress, I find it hard to believe he would have been able to get anything close to 80% in favor of a declaration of war.
Seamus | 01.02.06 - 11:40 am | #

"That "informal shooting war" was not full-scale hostilities, but something FDR was hoping would look like a series of unrelated "incidents" (rather like the Panay incident in Shanghai) and would provoke Hitler into going to war."

That is incorrect Seamus. The policy was publicly declared by FDR. If he was trying to backdoor us into war with Germany, I doubt he would have used a method that was known to all. The passage in the German declaration of war is accurate as to how open the naval hostilities were:



"On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States publicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force to shoot on sight at any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27, 1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force. Acting under this order, vessels of the American Navy, since early September 1941, have systematically attacked German naval forces. Thus, American destroyers, as for instance the Greer, the Kearney and the Reuben James, have opened fire on German sub-marines according to plan. The Secretary of the American Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that-American destroyers attacked German submarines."

Congress of course could have cut funds for these operations at any time. Congress did not. Even before Pearl Harbor the US was de facto at war with Germany.

FDR recognized this in his radio address of December 9, 1941:

"Remember always that Germany and Italy, regardless of any formal
declaration of war, consider themselves at war with the United States at
this moment just as much as they consider themselves at war with Britain
and Russia. And Germany puts all the other republics of the Americas into the category of enemies. The people of
the hemisphere can be honored by that.

The true goal we seek is far above and beyond the ugly field of battle.
When we resort to force, as now we must, we are determined that this
force shall be directed toward ultimate good as well as against
immediate evil. We Americans are not destroyers; we are builders.

We are now in the midst of a war, not for conquest, not for vengeance,
but for a world in which this Nation, and all that this Nation
represents, will be safe for our children. We expect to eliminate the
danger from Japan, but it would serve us ill if we accomplished that and
found that the rest of the world was dominated by Hitler and Mussolini."

I am confident that FDR would have asked Congress for a Declaration of War, and gotten it, before the end of December in 41 if Hitler hadn't acted first.
Donald R. McClarey | 01.03.06 - 10:54 pm | #