I love Fisk's sense of history

The US doesn't declare war becomes that requires an act of Congress. However the president can send troops without calling it war.

That's irrelevant, Randomizer. The US hasn't declared war since WWII. Since then, we have fought in plenty of them. The word "war" in the sense that this article uses is not the formal sense of the word.

Great piece, by the way.

I love the symmetry. But it still says 'we are not at war unless we decide it' - rather Imperialistic. It means we can ignore their complaints or criticisms until we have a problem.

Not only has the U.S. not declared war since World War II, but the U.S. has only official declared war five times in history -- the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II. Although I suppose you could also count the Declaration of Independence as a declaration of war against Great Britain.

On another note, it's worth remembering that all borders are in some sense artificial and arbitrary, whether or not they were drawn by colonial powers. The border between the U.S. and Canada, for instance, is a hundred-year-old artifact of colonialism (vis a vis the British Empire), yet it hasn't produced tons of conflict. So the argument that the borders themselves are entirely to blame doesn't strike me as convincing.

"But it still says 'we are not at war unless we decide it' - rather Imperialistic. It means we can ignore their complaints or criticisms until we have a problem."

If by "ignoring their complaints or criticisms," you mean "not bombing them," then I would argue that not declaring war is a form of benign neglect.

"The border between the U.S. and Canada, for instance, is a hundred-year-old artifact of colonialism (vis a vis the British Empire), yet it hasn't produced tons of conflict. So the argument that the borders themselves are entirely to blame doesn't strike me as convincing."

Canada and the United States are mostly inhabited by colonists and therefore I think it is a different situation than Africa and the middle east. Although I will agree with you that borders are not entirely to blame.

"Canada and the United States are mostly inhabited by colonists and therefore I think it is a different situation than Africa and the middle east."

Good point. There are definitely differences, I just wanted to pick the least-conflicted border

In a broader sense, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any place on earth where the borders weren't either shaped by: A. Colonialism, or B. World War I & World War II. Some of those regions continue to have high conflict (Middle East/Africa), and it's worth examining why. But I really doubt it's the borders. I find the Fisk article more convincing when it talks about the "West's" (left unsaid: the USSR's) role in backing dictators and specific Middle East conflicts, rather than its claims that all borders in the Middle East are illegitimate, meaningless, and inherently unworkable. The article doesn't attempt to give any specific proof why these borders are problematic, other than saying that some Arab citizens feel aggrieved by them. Well, I'm sure that as an investigative journalist you could go out and find some Americans who would like to annex Canada, but they'd be rightly dismissed as crazies. Seriously, these borders are 100 years old. Either get over it, or work through organized processes (like the European Union) to promote regional integration on a peaceful level.

I think the Fisk article irks me the most when it basically slams Tunisia for doing its best to establish democracy, keep terrorists out, and otherwise have a real country in these turbulent times.

No, borders are not entirely to blame. That does not mean we should ignore the idea of borders, or attitudes to them, and how this impacts the 'war without borders' - there is a reason the 'medicine sans frontiers' and 'engineers without borders' exist.

Whether or not borders matter depends heavily on whether they can be enforced, and then what you allow to cross them (oil, people, food, internet, guns?)

I am not going to claim borders are a modern concept, they probably only have 10,000 years of history (give or take a few millennia) but the idea of fixed borders is a myth perpetrated by the 'international community' in the interest of stability - it has times when it does increase stability, and others when it leads to civil war instead of compromise... But the aim is clear (and most benefits the status quo, though can benefit everyone else aswell)

And yes, the border between Canada and the US is different, but it depends on people believing in it. Yet it was negotiated between the US and British Empire (representing Canada) after the war of 1812. US citizens at least supported it because they had a say in creating it, they believe in it; That belief gives it power.

Of course, it takes two sides to give a border power, the Canadians believe in it too. It defines them in some ways, the way the war of 1812 defined their identity and destiny as separate from the independent colonies in the US.

Obviously, Iraq and Syria had borders, and people believed in them once. Maybe not as a desirable thing, but as a practical reality.

But with a weak government in Iraq, and Assad losing huge amounts of Syria, the reality of these borders has changed. The fact that there are huge areas of desert which are impossible to enforce as a practical border.

"A. Colonialism, or B. World War I & World War II. "

There is a difference - a lot of european borders were based on nationality rather than some external colonial force determining them.

This was a Europe where a shared language was seen as a common national identity. And nationalism was on the rise. But the UN supported self-determination. Look at the Scottish independence referendum, or Puerto Rico voting to become a state...

Borders defined by people have that sense of belief. (Though perhaps a belief in nationalism is waning, and the EU has changed what borders mean across most of Europe)

Can we get a vdip syria variant where its got russia, isis, assad, kurdish rebels, iranians, and US with 1 SC

That sounds interesting :)
Except instead of rebels it should be al qaeda and it's allies.
Ooh and let's not forget hezbollah

Bellum omnium contra omnes

Is the state of nature. Any other interpretations are merely propaganda.

FAAAACT.

Bush went to Congress for a formal war declaration over Iraq which Congress has been regretting senator by senator ever since. Just ask Hilary Clinton.

The Mid East borders were set mostly by the French and English with some help by the UN. That's why Iraq invaded Kuwait claiming it was part of Iraq. It's also why the Kurds want to form their own country out of Iraq, Syria, and Turkey.

European borders aren't based on nationality any more than most other borders. They were set by the victors of dozens of wars. If they were based on nationality then they would be fractured even more. That's why East Europe has redivided since the fall of Communism that kept ethnic groups together like in Yugoslavia. Even Great Britain is slowly separating out Scotland.

President Bush went to Congress in 2002 for an AUMF against Iraq, not a formal war declaration. However, since issuing an AUMF is about the closest Congress ever gets these days to formally declaring war, everyone in Congress fully knew and understood what they were casting a vote in favor of.

Randomizer, you proved my point. A military engagement and a war are, by their strictest definitions, different. The author here uses them interchangably. You too are using them interchangably. That is because, in today's age, they are one in the same.

"European borders aren't based on nationality any more than most other borders. They were set by the victors of dozens of wars. If they were based on nationality then they would be fractured even more."

That is kinda bullshit. The borders of germany may have varied based on three wars, but germany wasn't a country until about 150 years ago. And the area that is germany today was based on who spoke german (they had a league dominated by austrians and prussians before that... But austria had it's own empire so didn't join germany until Hitler annexed it in ~1938) Still borders based on nationality - wars have expanded and contracted them, and split the nationality in two - even splitting berlin in two, but the berlin wall came down and East and West Germany reunified - peacefully despite the wars. Germany as we know it today was largely the result of two peaceful unifications. One in 1989 and one in 18??

Czechoslovakia doesn't exist anymore, and not due to any war but due to a peaceful decision to split based on national lies.

Yugoslavia doesn't exist anymore, the state was divided on federal lines based on nationalities and civil war did indeed break out before they managed to settle todays borders - again based on Serb, Croat, Slovenian, Bosnian, Macedonians and most recently Kosovan national identities. (Albanians didn't get much luck in that division, though some would like to see a greater Albania i'm sire)

Scotland voted against independence based on nationality (twice). But within the UK they have been devolving powers fon central government ONLY to nationalities - and the Welsh and English kingdoms have been unified for longer than the US has existed. Other devolution of power to regions within England have been rejected, only The capital cuty has taken more powers for itself...

Likewise Belguim has internal seperation based on language, Walloons, Flemish and Germans each have their own local services and two regional governments.

Sure parts of belguim could have merged with France or the Netherlands or Germany, if not for the several wars. So their borders are based on the Napoleonic wars (i think) and religion ( why Catholic Belgians who speak Dutch didn't want to join protestant Netherlanders who also speak Dutch)

Spain is also divided on linguistic grounds with multiple bational identities; the existance of Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are all based on peaceful transitions and mutual languages.

Only in Denmark, Sweden and Norway do i think the borders have been more influenced by war that a common language. Wars where both sides spoke very similar languages but not similar enough.

Contrast this with South America, several different nations with one language (excluding Brazil) Seperated by arbitrary borders which each revolution could define.

The US where state borders are clearly straight lines drawn on a map. The borders with Canada and Mexico were both settled at the end of wars, Spainish speakers fom south of the border cross without changing where the border is. Most of the territory of the US was added while killing or relocating the native inhabitants. Only the Indian territories/reservations remain as language based 'nations'.

Most of Africa and te Middle east had borders drawn in colonial times with the explicit intention of dividing local resistance by mixing populations who would find it harder to unify. The colonial powers didn't want a unifird resistance. Africa has suffered many civil wars and cross border wars as a result. They didn't create their borders, the borders were imposed on them.

Meanwhile, within the EU borders have become less and less important, as we have agreed to the free movement of people and goods, services and capital. The Schengen zone even includes non-EU members who don't want to be bothered with passport controls - Switzerland and Norway. (Though it excludes EU members Britian and Ireland, because the UK decided tey'd rarher be an island onto themselves)

I don't know enough about colonialism in east Asia, but i'm sure i could talk about the Indian sub-continent aswell. Europe is rather different in several ways.

"A military engagement and a war are, by their strictest definitions, different. The author here uses them interchangably. You too are using them interchangably. That is because, in today's age, they are one in the same."

The difference is on of public perception.

The public will oppose most wars. Usually on moral grounds. So they are not declared as often as possible, declaring a war is politically difficult, so western nations engage in military actions without a declaration. Until an attack like Paris gives the politicians political cover.

Wow Orathaic you sure have a lot of time to spend here. How do you manage to do this AND save the world at the same time? Impwessive.

Ah, fiedler, you didn't see me saving the world already??