I propose
an alternate approach to the "War on Terror."
The "war" was declared by our Decider-In-Chief, not by our Legislature.
There are two Webster definitions for the word "War":
1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations
2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism
Our Incompetent-In-Chief uses definition #2 (a state of hostility) to support his war powers. The Legislature has not ratified a declaration of war. If I'm right, nothing would prevent our Legislature from using Webster's first definition (conflict between nations) as a basis to propose a solution to Terrorism as a criminal conspiracy.
In 2004, Kerry tried to recast terrorism as "simply" a criminal enterprise. That attempt failed. In my opinion it failed because an alternate solution was not offered.
I am not just asserting that terrorism is "only" criminal, I'm proposing a solution.
Yes, the solution requires the acceptance of terrorism as criminal rather than an act of war. But, that is
all it is, criminal behavior. Terrorism is not about one nation violating another's territory. It is about the
tactics of those who hold certain beliefs.
Terrorism is only different from the Mafia in scope and intent.
More below ...Just like the Mafia, Terrorism is:
ruled by a diverse group of leaders
acts across national boundaries
violates the laws of most nations
instills fear in those confronted by it
has an international network of interacting leaders
is self-financed
Consider Interpol, an international police network. Imagine if the responsibility for the "War on Terror" were transferred to Interpol, or an organization like it. Let's call that organization IATO, International Anti-Terrorism Organization. A treaty would be offered, preferably through the UN, for ratification by the international community. Can you imagine the pressure on each nation to ratify? What nation would dare not ratify it?
Assuming this, admittedly difficult, undertaking succeeded:
the SWIFT problem would not exist
Western Europe (and Russia?) would no longer resist the
U.S. because they would be partners in a fight that makes sense to them - think of Putin's reaction to terrorist killings of Russian citizens, he didn't declare war, he just vowed vengeance - IATO could handle that
Other nations would feel comfortable signing on to a truly international effort, thus increasing cooperation on intelligence and enforcement (to include [local?] military options)
The wind would be removed from the sails of our Decider-In-Chief, that is, "War" powers would no longer be an option for him, or another President, to rewrite our Constitution
The Democratic party (if it adopted this as part of its platform) would be providing a solution to a major source of hatred toward the U.S., that is, providing a solution instead of unilaterally stirring up international trouble
So long as the U.S. was only another signatory to IATO, rather than a unilateral bully, nations would be willing to join IATO for their mutual protection from terrorism.
The nations of the world would be individually financing the opposition to terror, not just the U.S. and it's small group of allies
Am I nuts? Tell me why, or why not. It sure seems logical to me.