I have a suggestion, one that if it had been followed a few years back would have saved us this period of national anguish. Why don't we require that military action by the United States not be undertaken without a congressional declaration of war? After all, isn't this what the founding fathers very specifically spelled out two centuries ago? And for very good reasons? Oh sure, this is not the 18th century, when armies marched on foot and navies were wind-powered, the President should have emergency powers to quickly react to an attack, just as any military unit involved in peaceful operations has the right to fire back if fired upon unexpectedly by an enemy. But to actually plan an attack, mobilize the armed forces, set up the logistics, diplomacy and planning, and put in motion the whole war machine months ahead of time without a formal declaration of hostilities is not just morally wrong, it leads to precisely the kind of fiasco we're mired down in now.

The only drawback I can think of is that it gives away your plans ahead of time, but that certainly wasn't the case in Iraq. They knew we were coming, they watched us carefully paint ourselves into that corner and dutifully jumped in after us. Yeah, I know, President Bush had tacit congressional approval to go to war in Iraq, but why didn't congress formally declare? It's failure to do so was cowardice and indecision, and it put the whole decision in Bush's hands. He may have been crazy enough to plan this war, but he cannot be blamed for starting it. He had our permission. There was no reason not to have a formal declaration, there was certainly plenty of time, it wasn't like the hastily assembled response against the Taliban in Afghanistan, or the British defense of the Falklands. And from a purely practical point of view, a formal declaration preceding the start of hostilities would have convinced Saddam we meant busiiness and might have led to a negotiated settlement, including real inspections and maybe even surrender, occupation and regime change.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell, the last formal declaration of war occurred in in 1945 when Stalin declared war on Japan. Since then, every single military action we (or anyone else) has been involved in began essentially as a variation on Pearl Harbor. A formal declaration of war (except, of course, in an emergency as I outlined above) would unify the nation and give legitimacy to our leaders by establishing a legal basis for hostilities. The whole nation would have to take responsibility for the consequences, after debate and consideration.

Nations can be railroaded into war even with formal declarations, the Spanish-American War comes to mind, but at least it wouldn't happen as often as it has since 1945.