« The Peace Myth | Main | Laying Blame »

December 08, 2006

Fixing the Government

Bill Bennett's reaction to the Iraq Survey Group report seems to me to exemplify a significant problem with how the American government currently works.

Who are these commissioners and what is their expertise in Iraq — or even foreign policy?  Ralph Peters has made the point, “Washington insiders pretend to respect our troops but continue to believe that those in uniform are second-raters and that any political hack can design better war plans than those who've dedicated their lives to military service.”  The entire report is contemptuous of the military, spoken of as pawns on a chess table, barriers, observers, buffers, and trainers.  Never as what they are trained to be: the greatest warriors in the world.  Would it have been too much to ask that one general, or even one outspoken believer in the mission from the get-go, be on this commission?

I do agree with Bennett that it would have been a good idea to have a military man or two on the commission, if only to help evaluate the feasibility of the ISG's recommendations, but Bennett's reaction suggests he either fails to understand or (more likely) disagrees with the purpose of the ISG.

When the military takes the field, it does so to achieve a military objective in order to achieve a political objective. We do not go to war in order to kill people or destroy things. We go to war because we want to impose a political settlement on a nation or group that is unwilling to come to an agreement with us through diplomatic means. There is good reason to make use of military professionals to plan how to fight a war. But because war is ultimately a political action, both the decision to go to war and decisions about the war's objectives must be left to political leaders.

I’m tempted to go on about knowledge of American government, but for brevity, can we just say the president is the commander-in-chief and in charge — because he is elected by the people. 

This comment particularly disturbs me. In large part, the comment is probably accurate, because Congress has abdicated most if not all of its responsibilities. But the fact remains that, under our system of government, it is not up to the President to decide when we go to war. That privilege is reserved for Congress, and with good reason. Going to war is far too important to leave to a single individual, and by that same token, leaving war in the hands of one person is equally inappropriate.

I'm willing to bet that some readers read that last sentence and immediately thought that you can't run a successful war by committee. And that is true as far as it goes. But running a war without oversight is a demonstrated path to failure, at least based on our experience in Iraq. Individuals make mistakes, no matter how skilled they are. Congressional oversight provides a backstop against such errors. The President has the lead in running the war, but Congress does not bow out of the play once the declaration of war has passed.

It remains to be seen what, if anything, can be salvaged from Iraq. But there is no evidence the Bush administration is going to make any changes, positive or otherwise, without Congress getting involved. The 109th Congress has left the building. It's time to see if the 110th can improve on its record.

powered by performancing firefox