Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
As always, I think you're assuming that the people who are fighting are fighting for equitable inclusion, and as always I find that assumption insupportable. I don't think either side has the slightest interest in equitable inclusion. They want power. They want to win and kick the stuffing out of the other guys. That will leave them fighting an insurgency, but they don't care, because winning and kicking ass is better than losing and getting your ass kicked, and they know perfectly well that one or the other is going to happen. This is not a situation unique to Afghanistan by any means. The idea of a single government that is perceived as legitimate by the entire populace sounds lovely, but it can only work if various factions of the populace have at least marginally compatible ideas of legitimacy. If the general idea of what constitutes legitimacy is "we win and they lose", that's not so easy to do.

Insurgency and civil conflict don't have to be about the legitimately aggrieved fighting for inclusion and justice. They can also be, and often are, simple struggles for power between or among groups with fundamentally incompatible agendas. That's not something an intervening party can change, and it's a good reason for outside parties to think twice, and then a few more times, before getting involved.
Hear! Hear!
On one interpretation of the start of the American Revolution, the casus belli was little more than a desire to be in charge. In fact, this is referred to in the Declaration by the line I noted in my earlier post, to wit: "We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here." This is a reference to what I call the "vote with your feet argument." This argument basicly says, if you don't like how you are being governed, leave.

Some early immigrants, for instance those who happened to settle the Massachusetts Bay colony, came because they didn't like being told what religion they had to practice; they wanted the power to decide how they would worship. Once they got here, some moved on to found another colony (now the Ocean State) because they didn't want some of the other locals telling them what religion they could practice. The American Civil War was based on a similar issue--the power of the several states versus Federal power--"I don't want you folks in DC telling me what I can and can't do in my own state". The seceding states wanted to exercise more power than the Feds wanted them to have.
Interestingly enough, in my current home state a similar issue sometimes arises between towns and the state--the state approves each town's budget and sets each town's property tax rates. Sometimes the towns get rather irate about it, but, so far as I know, no town has ever tried to secede from the state. Instead the town files what is called a home rule petition for approval by the legislature. If approved, the state grants a town special power to be different from the rest of the state.
New states have been created in the US by what might be considered secession. This process has occured 3 times IIRC--Maine, Vermont, and West Virginia.

All of the above is really a digression however. The real issue is whether the Constitution specifies what missions are appropriate for the nation's armed forces. I would submit that the document is not that specific and that what the armed forces are authorized to do is instead specified in the US Code (mostly Title 10), which is updated, usually annually, via the defense authorization act and other acts that amend those portions of the USC that deal with the armed forces of the nation. Has anyone every submitted an NDAA to the Federal court system for review of its Constitionality?
Of course even the Authorization Act has a check--the Appropriation Act--even though Congress, acting on the citizens' behalf, may authorize the Army to have a million folks or the Navy to have 14 carriers, the services cannot actually get to those levels if no money is appropriated for the acquistion and maintenance of those people and ships. Since defense appropriations are enacted annually, the original issue about the constitutionality of our "standing" army and navy is moot, in my opinion.