Sunday, 8 September
 |
| Roosevelt's 1941 War Speech |
Good Morning Justin…
I hope you are able to follow the news in the coming week. You are about to witness an event unusual in
recent years. The President is
requesting authorization from Congress to use military force against an
adversarial government – Syria. This is
not to be mistaken with seeking a formal declaration of war. That hasn't been done since President
Franklin Roosevelt appeared before Congress following the attack on Pearl Harbor
by the Japanese in 1941. Still, any
military action against another nation is an act of war and President Obama is
clear that he wants to use deadly force against Syria’s military
capability.
It is a controversial position but recent presidents have believed they
already have the Constitutional power to act in a limited military manner
without first having Congress sanction their action. The Constitution actually stipulates that the
power to go to war resides with Congress and through much of our history the
President of the United States sought authorization from the legislative branch
before dispatching our military against any hostile nation. Technology developed in the twentieth century
changed that arrangement. By the 1960s
this nation was confronted with an adversary armed with intercontinental
ballistic missiles that could cause nuclear destruction to our military and
cities, taking less than twenty minutes from launch to detonation. It became obvious the president as Commander
in Chief would have to launch our own missiles without first consulting
Congress. This situation opened the door
to a Constitutional view that granted the Executive branch of the government
limited military authority when the interests of this nation demanded timely
action.
Congress was not consulted prior to President Reagan’s attack on Libya
in the 1980s. President George Herbert
Walker Bush launched a military action on Panama without Congressional
approval. President Clinton fired cruise
missiles at targets in Afghanistan and North Africa in early efforts to combat
terrorism. Congress was once again left
out of the decision making. Each of
these presidential actions was widely believed to be justified but they weren't taken to prevent an imminent threat to the security of this nation. The Executive power to use military force
without Congressional authorization was, once again, expanded.
Like his predecessors, President Obama also believes he has the Constitutional
authority to launch a military attack on Syria without first getting Congressional
approval. Nonetheless, he has included the
people’s representatives on Capitol Hill in the deliberative process. His stated reasons for doing this are that
military action is more effective when backed by the resolve of the nation and
that it is a healthy exercise in democratic government to vote on life and
death matters.
As of today, Sunday, the President’s request for war powers
authorization is likely to be turned down by Congress. There are reasoned arguments on both sides of
the issue but, after years of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the public is wary
of possible new military involvement in the Middle East. They have reason to be concerned. United States involvement in the region has
often led to disappointing results. Poor
decisions by our leaders have sometimes brought about costly failures. Military actions are measures of focused
violence in an attempt to further one’s own political goals. The goals in this instance go beyond discouraging
the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons. They also include a demonstration of resolve
by our nation in preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. How does Iran interpret the actions of our
leaders? How do nations threatened by
Iran, particularly Israel, respond if diplomacy fails to forestall Iranian
nuclear ambitions? How does Japan and
South Korea respond to North Korea’s further development of their nuclear
potential if the credibility of U.S. protection is brought into question?
What is the likelihood of U.S. military involvement if new threats to
our allies result in new conflicts? Had
you been born a citizen of the Netherlands or New Zealand or Norway you could
go about your life not having to be concerned with constant foreign
entanglements. You wouldn't need to go
to the map to find out where the hell is Kandahar or Benghazi or Aleppo. You wouldn't need to pay taxes to cover the
cost of aircraft carriers everywhere.
You could bitch about that meddling Uncle Sam with his fingers in all
the pies. But that isn't the case, is
it? You’re here. You’re stuck.
Poor baby.
Love,
Dad
No comments:
Post a Comment