Schlesinger's War and The American Presidency

While Schlesinger talks of many different topics as far reaching as the electoral system, his main point is of the dangers of two war strategies.  These two are that of preemptive war and fighting unilaterally.  He explains the great dangers of these war policies and how they should not fit in the American democratic system.   
 
   First, he talks of the dangers of preemptive war.  He cites it as dangerous because many times the reasons involved are not concrete facts.  He uses the occupation in Iraq as his example of how the U.S. went in with the belief that there were weapons of mass destruction.  Whether Bush and his cabinet really believed that or were just trying to find reasons to go after Suddam, going to war without responding to an offense is a bad policy according to Schlesinger.  He believes this kind of policy also ignores the failures of the past.  One of his take away points at the end of the book is that so many bad decisions can be adverted by simply looking in the past at similar situations.  This review of history would show someone not to rush to judgement and pragmatically think through their plan.  He goes on to say this is a part of the dangerous Bush Doctrine which he feels is wholly undemocratic.
     While his problems with the doctrine include such aspects as intense interrogation and the way it gives the president as disproportionate amount of power, he mostly takes aim at the way it suppresses dissident.  In a democratic society, especially at times of conflict, other views must be heard so we can make sure we going forward in the best manner possible. Bush created wiretapping measures that sparked fear in citizens and generally rode the wave of patriotism after 9/11.  He feels this kind of environment punishes those who are against the war and chastises them as  unpatriotic.  Bush did this by increasing his powers to levels that Shlesinger felt were unprecedented. 
    He also takes aim at George W.'s unilateral war plans.  He charts all previous U.S. war engagements in the 20th century and notes how the most effective ones were when we were assisted by other countries or came to the aid of others.  Although not unprecedented given our unilateral history, a war like the war on terrorism is bound to fail according to Schlesinger because it has so little world support.  This could be a combination of other countries not agreeing with the motives of the war or not feeling the war has a chance of succeding.  I think another way Schlesinger uses the term unilateral is to talk about the president not staying within his circumscribed powers when waging war.  He talks of the president using his legal counsel to try to get around laws and help him implement his war strategies in the middle east.

I agree with the dangers Schlesinger lists and how it is easy for a president to get around laws that we believe should be followed.  Though, I do feel it is not always a serious offense as the president is supposed set a goal in the nations best interest and it is human nature to go about accomplishing it by any means possible.  While, I ultimately believe it is preferable to go about it legally, one can not be faulted for trying too hard to as long as they have the nations best interests in mind.  Of, course Bush is the prime example of why this is a tricky matter. 
   I also agree that especially during times of war and other big national issues, the media and citizens should be looking to welcome all views.  We want to the decision correct and the only way to do that is to understand all the options and then come to your conclusion.  This clearly did not happen well during the weeks and months after 9/11.  It also is a step Bush did not take as he was sitting on Wolfowitz's doctrine and leapt at the opportunity to invade the middle east.

Quick note one journal right below this

For whatever reason I referred to Justice Robert Jackson with feminine pronouns.  I do not want to go back in and change it because then the post could be perceived as being late.  I do realize Sandra Day O'Connor was the first female supreme court justice.

Unofficial, but Understood Powers of the President

Suffice Justice Jackson's opinion to say that she is not happy with the ways of Washington.  She feels the president has taken too many powers away from Congress, and Congress is allowing this to happen without putting up a fight and sometimes even approval.  She notes that the constitution is more of an outline of Government and has some ambiguity in it's broad statements, but the current system is a far cry from the constitutionally vested powers.
    As it relates to the case, she notes that such emergency eminent domain powers have dangerous precedents in other countries when left up to one person.  First, she notes that  Germany after WWI gave their leader many powers to curb citizens freedoms in dire situations and this led to the catastrophe of the Third Reich ruling.  The French Republic did not vest the emergency laws in their leader, but they must be gained as a parliamentary measure.  Great Britain also successfully fought both world wars with parliamentary approval of emergency laws being given to the prime minister.  Through these three examples she finds that parliamentary control made emergency powers compatible with freedom.  If one person has all these powers there is greater chance that corruption can lead to disastrous results for the country.
   She notes what Diclerico also found, that Congress has made few attempts to gain this power back from the President.  Because the president is understood to be the leader of the political party that a portion of the members of congress are a part of, there is not as severe of a reprimand on the President for overstepping his bounds as there maybe should be.
   The justice feels that the only time the president should have his maximum powers is when he has been given approval by congress to act.  She also says that if under these situations his action are deemed unconstitutional than the entire system lacks power.  In other words, there should be very few of those situations.  This is the only time the president can say he has "inherent" or "implied" powers.  The justice even acknowledges some wiggle room when the power is not clearly defined by policies.  But, in the case of the steel mill there are set policies the president ignored.
    Justice Jackson wisely says that the purpose of the constitution was not just to define powers, but to keep power from getting out of hand.  In this she sees a clearly defined set of checks and balances.  She has observed a history of presidents pushing the limits of these powers and thereby taking away power from the other branches, even the judiciary which is not barely mentioned in her opinion.  This is very similar to DiClerico finding that presidents look for every possible way to circumvent the law in regards to war powers.  They try to keep the true details of the troops activity confidential for as long as possible because the 60 day clock will start as soon as everyone realizes the president authorized fighting without congressional approval.  DiClerico also shows how presidents don't even acknowledge that the war powers act restrains them from acting unilaterally.  The presidents speak with Congress because they want to advise them and not because it is their obligation.  Clearly, people need to honor and obey the law for it to be an effective law.
  Those who oppose the war power act cite that the president can't use his veto on a congressional vote and that it gives congress the right to implement the laws, a role given to the president.  But, when considering the dangers of not having the act, the acts implementation is the lesser of the evils. 
   While Justice Jackson's conceptualization of a democracy is highly unlikely, because everyone is looking for loopholes and bargaining for more power, she does lay out a good case of a well run democracy.  The most possible step that can be taken to that end would be further isolating the branches, but beyond that it will take a while to restore some of the powers the president has taken away from the other branches.

Compare and Contrast: Libya and Kosovo

    When comparing the speeches to the nation given by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama in regards to Kosovo and Libya respectively, there are many similar themes and reasons outlined.  They both cite efforts as humanitarian more so than war.  They both try to justify it to the skeptics by pointing to it being a NATO lead operation and that the U.S. will have to invest less resources and manpower in the fight.   Though, a difference is that while Obama explicitly stated that there would be not troops on the ground, Clinton made no such promise.  With both being NATO operations, the presidents were basically forced into action with the fallout making the US look like a self-serving outlier.  Some of the broader justifications they both made were that the countries unrest had the potential to cause further problems in the region as a whole.  Clinton said that this could get out of hand and spill into other countries and that a unified Europe was key to U.S. interests.  Obama pointed to the many potential revolutions  in the middle east and that if the U.S. and NATO did not stand up to the governments dangerously trying to suppress the revolutions, they would be giving the current leaders a free pass and no fear of repercussion for their actions.  Clinton also made that point in regards to NATO and a previous NATO peace agreement.  They both state that refugees could become a problem as people try to flee the country.  Only Clinton had a history with the country and the obligation of honoring a prior peace agreement in the country as a reason for bringing in U.S. troops.  But, perhaps the biggest point both were trying to impress upon Americans during their speeches was that the U.S., and the other powerful countries of NATO, had an obligation to stop a mass killing like was happening in both of these countries.

    It is on that note that they both somewhat propose a doctrine for helping countries in humanitarian crises, but not in all cases.  Clinton did not intervene in Rwanda, and many of the reasons he went into Kosovo could not be made for Rwanda.  Rwanda was a fairly isolated incident with little NATO interest.  This could make you come to the conclusion that the president needs more than just humanitarian reasons to bring in the troops.  While Clinton now regrets not taking action, as the president he did not see a demand for action when it comes to the US's interests.
  
    Obama has had many possible events recently to put manpower to, but has not seriously considered any besides Libya.  This is probably for an opposite reason, that U.S. interests and allies keep us from even making strong reprimands on the leaders of the countries.  And, clearly it was a good thing we did not put troops in Egypt, as the rebellion was successful and was also able to stay authentic without and outside forces.  Though, we still are not sure what kind of government will come into power in Egypt, just as we do not totally know who the rebels are in Libya.  This is one of the dangers and probably a reason Obama is not taking such steps as supplying them with weapons.  More egregious government actions are taking place in Bahrain.  The problem there becomes that they are being partially committed by the Saudi military, a key US ally.  Clearly, even as a world superpower with the feeling that we need to protect those less fortunate in the world, there are many variables that keep us from intervening.  After all, as Obama stated, we do not have the resources to police the world.  While true, that does not mean we should not try to help in any instance where U.S. interests are not badly interfered with and even at risk, as is the case with Libya and Kosovo.