E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
I use this title
not only because of the outstanding qualities of Martin Sherwin’s masterful new
book Gambling With Armageddon, but because in key respects this is the
first book to truly reveal, in a thorough, judicious and analytical way, both
the overt and covert story of the crisis as well as its somewhat stunning implications
for our understanding of the relationship of the Cold War to constitutional
developments in the American presidency.It appears earlier significant volumes on the crisis did not have the
benefit of the full record, including Sherwin’s revelations about how U.S.
actions against Soviet submarines in the Atlantic nearly led to the first use
of nuclear weapons since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.As a substantial bonus, Sherwin’s book
contributes to the ongoing reconsideration of the presidency of John F.
Kennedy, surely one of the more difficult challenges besetting historians studying
the long middle of the twentieth century.
Although Sherwin’s
book provides several fascinating revelations in addition to the submarine
incident, I will lay those aside to concentrate on its implications for the
study of the presidency.Sherwin highlights
those features in his description of the book’s purpose: “How [Kennedy] freed
himself from the conventional Cold War attitudes his advisers advocated—why he
changed his mind and resisted initiating a military strike—is the central
question of the Cuban missile crisis and the ultimate subject of this
book.”This arresting statement should
command our most focused attention.
To put it another
way, Sherwin gives us a lot to chew on.The most unsettling observation Sherwin makes in his global assessment
of the missile crisis is how much was left to chance.In particular, neither Kennedy nor Khrushchev
perceived until almost too late how little of the crisis was within their
direct control.And the potential stakes
– destruction of both the U.S. and the Soviet Union, not to mention the rest of
the human world – are difficult to properly come to grips with.This is especially the case as President
Kennedy repeatedly tangled with advisers who, in effect, wanted to put the
United States in harm’s way.Not for
nothing does Sherwin name the part of the book on the crucial thirteen days,
“Kennedy vs. ExComm, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Khrushchev, and Castro.”Kennedy thus had to contend with both foreign
and domestic challenges.
Sherwin’s book
should spur some rethinking of the role of the President in relation to his
advisers, in relation to the military, and the relation of these last two
supposed presidential agents to Congress.I say “supposed” because at several crucial points in the events leading
to the crisis and, in fact, during the crisis, agents of the executive branch
acted more as independent instigators rather than subordinates.The CIA’s all-too-easy assumption about the
Bay of Pigs operation that Kennedy would have no choice but to make a full
military commitment is well known.Less
well known is the pervasive assumption among the military that Castro’s very
existence was a ideological (not existential) threat that the crisis offered
the perfect opportunity to solve.Well,
not!As scholars showed earlier and
Sherwin reminds us, Soviet troops in Cuba had not only intermediate range
nuclear missiles to deter attack, but battlefield nuclear weapons that could
have easily been used against a U.S. invasion.The result could easily have been not only mass casualties on both
sides, but the permanent denudation and contamination of the entire island.
Sherwin’s book prompts
me to reconsider the role of nuclear weapons in remaking constitutional relationships,
not only within the executive branch, but between the branches.I didn’t develop this role in my book on war
powers, Long Wars and the Constitution, because I didn’t see evidence
that these weapons played a unique role in increasing presidential power after
World War II.As Sherwin notes
provocatively at one point, however, it is not just that Congress was not
informed of various postwar covert operations, including the Bay of Pigs.Not sharing information with Congress goes
back to the establishment of the Manhattan Project.Congress was dealt out of nuclear decision
making from the very beginning.Some
decisions made by subsequent presidents, such as Truman’s decision to retain civilian
control of the use of nuclear weapons, seem wise and defensible.But Sherwin’s narrative supports the
disturbing conclusion that Congress’s absence distorted the Constitution, not
simply in creating dysfunctional and dangerous relationships within the
executive branch, but obviating any meaningful role for the legislative
branch.As we move forward on war
powers, Sherwin’s book can play a valuable role in forcing us to rethink these
relationships anew.