My response- Declaring war is not a thought that should be considered optional. If a conflict comes about and it requires the military to get involved, congress is required to vote on this and declare war if necessary. If you don't declare war, you can't officially declare an enemy, and if you can't formally declare an enemy then who are you fighting? The is one of the reasons why the US haven't won any wars since WW2. In WW2 we were fighting defined enemy's(Axis Powers). The war was quickly won and finished compared to our military campaigns nowadays.
The concept of a "declaration of war" hasn't really fitted into the Cold War or post-Cold-War threat landscape. Strictly speaking, it didn't fit into the Second World War's threat landscape seen as many of the participants were subnational groups and organisations which couldn't actually declare war according to the Hague Convention, and nor did some individual nations who were involved in the conflict. In fact, the advent of the UN Charter which seeks to define "just" defensive war and outlaw offensive warfare has basically rendered the entire concept of a "declared war" obsolete. The legal restrictions that apply to nations and dictate when they can fight and how are set out there and enable states to engage in warfare without declaration; in fact, the overwhelming majority of conflicts since 1945 have had no official "declaration of war" and many of those that have had an official statement regarding a state of war have instead declared a "war zone" or "state of conflict", which is legally speaking an entirely separate thing, recognising ongoing but limited military hostilities without the implicit suggestion of an "unlimited" war, as seen in 1914 and 1939, where the entire state apparatus is mobilised in pursuit of total victory.
Similarly, it is not the failure to "declare" wars in contemporary conflict which results in a lack of specificity as to who the combatants are, but the irregular nature of the combatants themselves. International legislation governing the use of force revolves almost solely around the use of force between sovereign states
. When you start bringing violent non-state actors into the mix, often with covert or overt support from multiple nation states or groups inside nation states, the you lose the ability to draw meaningful conclusions between what are relatively simple inter-state conflicts which defined warfare pre-1945, and on which the legal basis for warfare in IR rests. Comparing the Second World War to what appear to be fairly "conventional" Cold War era conflicts like Vietnam or the various elements of the Arab-Israeli wars is difficult enough, let alone more modern limited wars.
The reason that WWII was won relatively
quickly is twofold. One, the combatants employed their entire economic and industrial infrastructure in the process of making warfare. Effectively the entire global economy and almost every element of sociology and geopolitics was based around violence. Two, the sides engaged in the conflict were relatively clearly defined. We still can't properly define the Viet Cong as a fighting force despite the fact that US involvement in Vietnam ended 40 years ago. Modern counter-insurgency theory suggests and effective pacification ratio of somewhere between 5:1 and 20:1 soldiers to irregular combatants, and that's with a largely neutral population. And it's nigh-on impossible to inflict a "crushing defeat" on an armed force which is both irregular and extensively intertwined with society.
Now in the last decade+ who has the united states really been fighting? Terrorism?
Specifically, Takfiri and militant Sunni Islamist terrorist organisations with the strategic endgame of creating a global caliphate. The "war on terror" is a misnomer but the enemy is, theoretically speaking, fairly well defined.
Apparently so, due to our interventions in 1953 we suffer from quite a bit of blowback.
I think you've got your wires crossed here. Iran is a Shia-dominated state. The hostility towards the West from them is entirely separate from that of the Sunni Islamist groups. In fact, Sunni extremism is just as much of a threat (and probably moreso) to Iran as it is to the US or Europe. If you'd said US involvement in various despotic regimes in North Africa and Western funding for Israeli during the Arab-Israeli conflict I'd be inclined to agree at least in part.
We then had 9/11 occur, fast foward to weapons of mass destruction that never existed..
Except Iraq was never portrayed to be part of the "global war on terror". It was an entirely distinct conflict, executed under a questionable pretext sure, but for which several perfectly legitimate and entirely reasonable pretexts for military intervention did exist; chief amongst which was the reports by UNSCOM that Iraq was violating international treaties put in place in the wake of Desert Storm to prevent them developing or obtaining medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles. Had that been the justification for invasion (which by all rights it could have been, as it was the same UNSC resolution that was violated as the one violated by the apparent continued development of WMDs) then there would have been little to no legal argument.
and now this ISIS thing(due to intervention)
You could equally argue that the rise of IS is a product of a failure
to intervene. In 2011 AQI, which formed the basis for ISIS (later IS) was largely broken, the FSA were rallying against Assad's forces in Syria as a fairly heterogeneous group with widespread backing from secularists and moderate Sunnis. It could be argued that the international community turning their back on Syria in the face of grave abuses of international law, including the use of weapons of mass destruction, by the Syrian government forces, was an effective radicalising tool; not only turning once-moderate Sunni fighters towards more extremist and expansionist schools of Sunni Islam and therefore aligning them with the remnants of groups like AQI but also bringing in jihadi fighters from elsewhere.
I should elaborate more.
we've invaded enslaved by our failing dollar(which by the way is worth like what? 2% of it's original worth?)
Now this descends into downright farce. By what metric is the dollar worth 2% of its "original value"? Please explain this.
However these countries still have a "gold standard" as we do not.
If you're referring to the idea of pegging currency against the value of precious metal reserves, this has been abandoned across most of the world, primarily because the value of gold et cetera tends to be more volatile than intangible stocks. Zero countries currently use the gold standard as a measure of value.