Balkinization: Life in a "constitutional dictatorship" (continued)

Life in a "constitutional dictatorship" (continued)

Sandy Levinson

Dan Froomkin's blog for the Washington Post asks "Are We Closer to War?" The question, and most of the post, is sparked by the unceremonious dumping of Adm. William Fallon as head of the overall Middle East (and Afghanistan) command following his comments in an Esquire article about the unwisdom of going to war with Iran. Yes, I know that Adm. Fallot "voluntarily" resigned, but only after, apparnetly, Secretary of Defense Gates stopped returning his calls. Froomkin suggests a linkage between the Israeli attack on Syria (to smoke out the defensive electronics of recently acquired equipment from Russia) and the Cheney trip to the mideast re the possibility of a new war.

As always, although Hillary talks about a bill that would require congressional approval before action in Iran (which, I assume, Senate minions of the President would filibuster and/or the "Great Decider" would simply veto), we know at the end of the day that the decision is up to the President, and there is, practically speaking, not a damned thing we can do about it prior to the joyful day next January on which he is replaced (though McCain might be every bit as bad in his Irano-phobia). That's what it means to live in a constitutional dictatorship. Would that some pundit be as interested in that reality of our system as much as the Democratic Party rules on choosing a candidate. Or perhaps Obama might point out the dictatorial (as well as racist) overtones of the "3AM" ad. Certainly Hillary's husband didn't seem to think that Congress had any real say on sending troops to Haiti or initiating war with Serbia. Did he ask her advice on the matter? And what did she say? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Have a good day (while watching your retirement accounts dissipate because of $110/barrel oil that is financing Wahabi fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia and our ostensible enemies in Iran). Though what would be the price of oil the day after an American attack on Iran? Perhaps we'll have the opportunity to find out, thanks to our Constitution.

Posted 11:50 AM by Sandy Levinson [link]

Comments:

Sandy,

It's somehow comforting to see you wringing your hands like this. It's nice to know I (and other like-minded folks) aren't alone. Don't despair, this too must pass. And when it does we'll all be the better for your constant efforts on behalf of liberty, justice, and the rule of law.

Peace.

# posted by

Robert Link : 12:44 PM

garth is correct. Fallon's forced retirement has been a long time coming and Iran is only one element.

The military is divided into roughly two lines of thought.

Petreaus argues that we are engaged in a long war involving counter insurgency in the Middle East which is simply going to take time and manpower to complete.

The higher brass like Fallon wants to concentrate on larger potential conventional enemies like China and North Korea and wants out of thankless counter insurgency operations like those on Iraq and Afghanistan.

The President has come down on the side of Petreaus and the brass has been engaged in a bit of media insurgency themselves. Fallon has been a particularly egregious example of this insurgency.

You do not go on venues like the al Qaeda propaganda outlet al Jezeera and argue for abandoning both Iraq and Afghanistan and taking the military option completely off the table for dealing with Iran's nuclear program in complete contravention of US policy. Frankly, I am surprised that Bush did not yank this (in)subordinate's chain awhile back. The Atlantic article was just the last in a long line of straws.

Perhaps Fallon is auditioning for a position on the Obama foreign policy team.

BTW, Sandy, there is absolutely no sign of the diplomatic and military buildup necessary to launch the level of attack necessary to take down the Iranian nuclear facilities. You will see it a mile off if it happens.

Because the clock is running on the Bushies and these ops take a few months to ramp up, it appears that Iran is being handed off to the next Administration on the gamble that CIA is actually right for once and Iran is a few years from deploying its first bomb.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:47 PM

Bart, that last one, with your shifting uses of the letters i-n-s-u-r-g-e-n-c-y makes me wonder if you've worked so long as an advocate that you've literally lost the ability to speak accurately or use words precisely. It would explain a lot of the frustration some of us feel when engaging you, while allowing for some measure of "unconditional positive regard" with which one would normally like to view others.

Be that as it may, I note you avoid Sandy's central point: that we live in a "constitutional dictatorship", one which may be inherited by someone other than your beloved PNAC. What then?

# posted by

Robert Link : 1:01 PM

robert:

An insurgency is a low level rebellion, which would pretty much summarize Fallon's actions.

I have addresses Sandy's slightly overwrought worries about executive "dictatorships" in the past. There is nothing new to add to that argument. Rather, I addressed the new Fallon news.

Finally, my problem over a potential Obama presidency is not that he will exercise his CiC powers as have nearly all past Presidents, but rather that he will pursue a naive Carter-esque abandonment of his responsibility to defend the nation with the argument that we have an inordinate fear of our enemies and things will turn out just peachy if we negotiate without any preconditions.

Warmed over recipes for failure do not taste better the second time around.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 1:42 PM

Bart, seriously, as your loyal opposition who truly harbors a touch of affection for you despite of our tussles, I repeat, you might want to reconsider your over-reliance on homonymy. Equating Fallon's position with that of the folks we're killing in Iraq and Afghanistan is, charitably, shoddy prose. You can do better, and you deserve the respect and comraderie you could earn, from both sides of the aisle, if you would work on it.

# posted by

Robert Link : 2:01 PM

"Warmed over recipes for failure do not taste better the second time around."

Shame we re-elected George W. Bush, then.

# posted by

"Q" the Enchanter : 3:01 PM

Perhaps Fallon is auditioning for a position on the Obama foreign policy team.

Considering the long and distinguished list of previously retired generals who think that invading Iraq was an idiotic mistake, he probably made his move a little late.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 3:04 PM

robert link said...

Bart, seriously, as your loyal opposition who truly harbors a touch of affection for you despite of our tussles, I repeat, you might want to reconsider your over-reliance on homonymy. Equating Fallon's position with that of the folks we're killing in Iraq and Afghanistan is, charitably, shoddy prose. You can do better, and you deserve the respect and comraderie you could earn, from both sides of the aisle, if you would work on it.

Shucks, I thought the metaphor was a cute transition. After all the dry legal writing I do for work, the license of a blog can be fun.

Ah well, you can't please all the people all the time...

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 3:14 PM

Bart: ...the license of a blog can be fun.

Ain't it the truth? And I'm often among the first to take liberties with the medium. Maybe if we were in the pub and had the added data of faces it would be more obvious when you're being a tad playful rather than being, how to say, intentionally difficult.

There's an old saying, not really true but terribly useful in the context of effective communication: "The meaning of my communication is the response I elicit." Only works in the first person; you might take a moment to consider the possible ramifications of such a position for folks like us who generate a lot of conflict. Verb sap.

# posted by

Robert Link : 3:28 PM

"Bart" DePalma:

The higher brass like Fallon wants to concentrate on larger potential conventional enemies like China and North Korea and wants out of thankless counter insurgency operations like those on Iraq and Afghanistan.

The President has come down on the side of Petreaus ...

No. The preznit has come down on the side of trying to justify his own stoopidity (so as to not look teh fool for all aeternity), after having been pwn3d by the PNAC folks.

The brass are sick of being the fall guys of such stoopidity ... and may actually care that another dozen troops are dead in the last three days.

You do not go on venues like the al Qaeda propaganda outlet al Jezeera ....

Don't look now, but your blindness to actual facts and your willingness to spout the RW Mighty Wurlitzer line are showing. If you truly believe what you just said, no wonder you are so clueless. But [little hint here, "Bart"]: <*PSSST!*> No need to advertise that fact.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 10:52 PM

["Bart"]: Finally, my problem over a potential Obama presidency is not that he will exercise his CiC powers as have nearly all past Presidents, but rather that he will pursue a naive Carter-esque abandonment of his responsibility to defend the nation with the argument that we have an inordinate fear of our enemies and things will turn out just peachy if we negotiate without any preconditions.

Like McFarlane's "bible and cake" trip?

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 11:00 PM