I believe what people say is the US has technically not been at war since WWII, since everything since then has not gotten the approval of Congress, so has been a “military operation,” not a war.

However I was taking a look at the VA pension benefits, and they define “wartime periods” as including the Korean War, Vietnam War and Persian Gulf War/Iraq and Afghanistan operations. This of course leaves out things like Grenada, Panama, Haiti, and also instances where US troops were part of UN/NATO troops, like Yugoslavia.

Since technically these conflicts have the same status as larger conflicts like the Korean and Vietnam wars, why aren’t they treated the same way? Why are some military operations considered “wars” while some aren’t, even though neither have congressional authorisation? Is it really just subjective thinking since clearly the Vietnam War represents a much larger conflict and went on for longer than Grenada, so can more accurately be called a “war” - even though there’s no definition really to back up that assertion?

Idk maybe there’s no answer. Just something I noticed and was wondering if anyone knows if there is a reason for this.

  • ourob@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    16·
    11 months ago

    It’s Schroeder’s war. The classification changes depending on the political context.

    It is a war in contexts where not calling it a war would be politically harmful (like denying thousands of wounded Americans benefits). It is not a war in contexts where calling it a war would imply that the president vastly overstepped their constitutional bounds.

    • davel [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      12·
      11 months ago

      The United States runs by Calvinball rules. Everything’s made up and the laws don’t matter.

      Edit to add: I read a book on it: American Exception

      American Exception seeks to explain the breakdown of US democracy. In particular, how we can understand the uncanny continuity of American foreign policy, the breakdown of the rule of law, and the extreme concentration of wealth and power into an overworld of the corporate rich. To trace the evolution of the American state, the author takes a deep politics approach, shedding light on those political practices that are typically repressed in “mainstream” discourse.

      In its long history before World War II, the US had a deep political system—a system of governance in which decision-making and enforcement were carried out within—and outside of—public institutions. It was a system that always included some degree of secretive collusion and law-breaking. After World War II, US elites decided to pursue global dominance over the international capitalist system. Setting aside the liberal rhetoric, this project was pursued in a manner that was by and large imperialistic rather than progressive. To administer this covert empire, US elites created a massive national security state characterized by unprecedented levels of secrecy and lawlessness. The “Global Communist Conspiracy” provided a pretext for exceptionism—an endless “exception” to the rule of law.

      What gradually emerged after World War II was a tripartite state system of governance. The open democratic state and the authoritarian security state were both increasingly dominated by an American deep state. The term deep state was badly misappropriated during the Trump era. In the simplest sense, it herein refers to all those institutions that collectively exercise undemocratic power over state and society. To trace how we arrived at this point, American Exception explores various deep state institutions and history-making interventions. Key institutions involve the relationships between the overworld of the corporate rich, the underworld of organized crime, and the national security actors that mediate between them. History-making interventions include the toppling of foreign governments, the launching of aggressive wars, and the political assassinations of the 1960s. The book concludes by assessing the prospects for a revival of US democracy.