CongressionalRepublicans say the answer to the first query is military escalation. Butaccording to polls, most Americans disagree. At the same time, many expertswonder "whether or not we know what we're doing," as President GeorgeW. Bush's former deputy national security adviser said last week.
One thing'sfor sure: The U.S. Commander in Afghanistan,Gen. Stanley McChrystal, says he wants more troops. His new memo calling for abigger Afghanistan deployment prompted President Obama to begin carefullyconsidering different ways forwardand Washington to hammer the White House forentertaining any alternative to McChrystal's request.
Republicanslambasted Obama for letting "political motivations...override the needs ofour commanders," as Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., said. Likewise, the WashingtonPost insisted that Obama's failure to promptly back McChrystal's surge proposalcould "dishonor" America, while the New York Times said no matter what the president wants, "Itwill be very hard to say no to General McChrystal."
Thecoordinated assault sharpens that question about who "the deciders"should beelected officials or the military?
TheWashington Establishment clearly believes the latter, and that's no surprise.The war-mongering political class has called for presidential and congressionaldeference to military demands since Hollywood movies and anti-communist ideologuesbegan countering the public's "Vietnam Syndrome" by blaming thatquagmire in Southeast Asia on electedofficials.
In thepurest articulation of the argument, Ronald Reagan asserted in 1980 that Vietnam waslost not because of flaws in mission or strategy, but because politiciansallegedly forced soldiers to fight "a war our government (was) afraid tolet them win."
Avoidinganother Vietnam, says this school of thought, requires a figureheadgovernmentone that delegates all military decision-making power to generalsand effectively strips it from elected civilians who will supposedly be too"politically motivated" (read: influenced by voters). Thisauthoritarian ideology explains not only today's vitriolic reaction to thepresident's Afghanistandeliberations (including the conservative magazine Newsmax fantasizing about amilitary "coup" to "resolve the Obama problem") but alsosome of the most anti-democratic statements ever uttered by American leaders.It explains, for instance, Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that publicopinion "doesn't matter" when it comes to military policy, andPresident Bush saying Iraq"troop levels will be decided by our commanders on the ground, not bypolitical figures in Washington."
Of course,the Constitution deliberately gives "political figures in Washington" finalsay: Article I empowers Congress to declare and finance wars; and Article IIstates that while the White House "may require the opinion" ofmilitary officers, ultimately "the President shall be Commander inChief."
Thoseprovisions were no accident. By separating political from military power, andvesting our elected representatives with ultimate authority, the Founderspurposely constructed a democracy that seeks to prevent the dictatorial juntasthat often arise when no such separation exists.
In that way,the Constitution doesn't worry about elected officials' "politicalmotivations" as Sen. Bond does, nor does it fret about "a disconnect... between the military leadership and the White House," as Sen. JohnMcCain, R-Ariz., lamented. It views "political motivations" and a"disconnect" as democratic forces guaranteeing that public opinion,via elected "deciders," is somewhat involved in military policy.
Certainly,Obama and Democratic congressional leaders may still end up defying public willby making the lamentable choice to escalate the Afghanistan War. But afterrecent quagmires justified by knee-jerk subservience to military prerogative,America should at least applaud these lawmakers for refusing to immediatelyrubber stamp that course of action. In exploring all options, they are honoringthe Constitution's separation of powersand our nation's most democraticprinciples.
%uFFFD 2009CREATORS.COM
