March 23, 2003

• My Protest

  
  

  The war is definitely on.  We've lost troops to friendly fire.  We've lost troops to accident.  We've lost troops in combat.  Worst of all.  We've had soldiers captured and apparently some of these POW's were executed in a cold-blooded fashion.  I support our troops.  These men and women serve for very little pay under difficult conditions during peacetime.  During a time of war, they put their lives on the line.  They deserve our respect, our gratitude, and our support for their fidelity to duty. 

  
  

  Our President sent them into the field this time for confusing and uncertain reasons.  In his State of the Union Address, President Bush talked about the dictator who had killed his own people, wiping out their villages.  He said this is "evil" and is sufficient reason for us to launch a War against him.  I question why, if we consider this to be an acceptable provocation to war, we didn't launch our offensive 20 years ago when Sadam began this practice of evil against his people. 

  
  

  In more recent weeks he has said that we must invade Iraq to enforce a U.N. resolution.  Never mind that the U. N. Security Council never asked him to make such a move on it's behalf, he's such an enthusiastic supporter of the U.N. that he's willing to step up to the plate without putting them to that trouble.  Which might be greater comfort to the member states of the United Nations if he hadn't also made such statements as "we don't need your permission" before he gave the order to drop the bombs.

  
  

  The Constitutional scandal of the 20th century has been the disappearance of the Declaration of War provision.  (Section 8)  In the last 50 years we have been told that the rules of modern warfare do not make it practical or reasonable for a President to request a formal Declaration of War prior to acting.  However, the build-up for the present Invasion of Iraq has been on-going since the weeks immediately following 9/11.  The progress toward war has been deliberate, public, with less urgency and more leisure than any military action we have taken in the history of our nation.  Yet, our President did not submit to the clear checks and balances of our Constitution, he condescended after the troops were dispatched to the field to accept a blank check resolution from legislators cowed by their unwillingness to be see as unspportive of the soldier.

  
  

  The United States even prior to World War II has not only conformed to international constraints on the right of any nation to begin a war, but has been aggressive in it's application of the "Just War" doctrine which forms the basis of the Geneva Conventions.  This President, with no apparent embarrassment, brushed aside a millennium of progress toward civilized and diplomatic adjudication of national disputes. 

  
  

  Sovreign nations have the right to defend themselves and President Bush has attempted to frame his argument as exactly that, self-defense.  Waiting for an enemy to launch a first strike is tantamount to suicide.  So what's wrong with Bush's policy and position?

  
  

  First of all the right that Bush is asserting has no limits.  The special conditions he is claiming apply in this case, aren't special.  Striking first against an enemy amassing troops on your border is one thing.  Striking against an enemy which may or may not have weapons, which may or may not be a threat to you, sometime out in the future is quite a different thing. 

  
  

  Putting all this together, Bush is asserting the right of the United States to attack any country that may be a threat to it in five years. And the right of the United States to evaluate that risk and respond in its sole discretion. And the right of the president to make that decision on behalf of the United States in his sole discretion. In short, the president can start a war against anyone at any time, and no one has the right to stop him. And presumably other nations and future presidents have that same right. All formal constraints on war-making are officially defunct.

  
  

  Sometimes, when faced with a dangerous regime, it's naive and ultimately dangerous to deny that "might makes right."  We must recognize that there are definite disconnects between people of varying worldviews which make it impossible for diplomatic channels to prevail, there will never be agreement.  There are obviously times when it seems that might must be the most important tool in the chest.  However, there are important and practical reasons why might and right together must defer to procedure, law, and the judgement of others.  One of these reasons is uncertainty.  If we knew which babies would grow to be evil dictators, we could confine them from their youth.  If we knew which babies would be wise and judicious leaders we could crown them king.  Another reason is mercy for civilians who cannot help becoming collateral damage.  A third reason to hesitate marching down the path of "might makes right" is the precedent we set for the future. 

  
  

  At this time, no significant check exists to halt President Bush from any course he should choose to take.  Let me be very clear.  He is at this moment the closet thing to a world dictator that has existed since the days of the Roman Caesars.  He has commited hundreds of thousands of troops and billions of dollars to a War that has not been Constitutionally declared.  He has disrupted decades of diplomatic negotiation in the least stable region of the world.  He has set the most dangerous precedent I can imagine for the future of the presidency.  It makes me long for the days when the worst thing going on in the Oval office was a bit of hanky panky with a Cuban cigar.

  • 9:36 pm
  • 30 Comments