Arthur Schlesinger focuses his book around the how presidents use overuse their presidential power during war time. Although he discusses several different presidencies, he always comes back to George W. Bush. Although each chapter appears to have it’s own point and thesis, the point that seemed the strongest and stuck with me long after I finished the book was Bush’s take on Iraq. Presidents are supposed to prevent war, Schlesinger said. He said presidents use peace through prevention of war as a way to manage war, but Bush used peace through preventive war. While most presidents try to avoid it, Bush saw was as a way to keep the American people safe.
Bush did this quietly so that the United States and the world did not reject this idea. Preventive war had been suggested before, but it had been reject. President Truman once said, “I have always been opposed, even to the thought of such a war. There is nothing more foolish than to think that war can be stopped by war. You don’t ‘prevent’ anything by war except peace. However, Bush chose to use the word preemptive war, which many people were able to swallow. Schlesinger said the only difference between preemptive and preventive war is illegality and legality.
In light of Sept. 11, Schlesinger admits that a war with Afghanistan was necessary since the Taliban were not going to turn over Osama Bin Laden. However, the Iraq war was not necessary, Schlesinger argued and it was a sign of a unilateral presidency. Schlesinger makes a good point when he says the war against Iraq was a choice President Bush made. It was not like World War II where it came knocking on our door and we had to act. After Sept. 11, one can argue that war knocked on our door and that is why we invaded Afghanistan, but the same cannot be said for Iraq. Schlesinger said the problem with the Iraq war was that the Bush administration had “not one doubt” that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, was attempting to make nuclear bombs and had a strong connection with Bin Laden. People didn’t fight Bush because it was only a year and a half after Sept. 11. However, Bush was wrong.
What I found interesting about Schlesinger’s book was that each chapter framed an idea, often about the Bush presidency, and then backed it up with things that former presidents had said or actions that they had made. For instance, when talking about Bush entering Iraq, he quoted Lincoln saying, “If today he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, ‘I see no probability of the British invading us,’ but he will say to you, ‘Be silent: I see it, if you don’t.’ I unfortunately agree with Schlesinger that the president often had too much power when it comes to war entering powers, and I stronger agree with Lincoln’s quote here. I was only in the eighth grade when we entered Iraq, so my foreign policy skills were very little if any. But I remember thinking that Bush knew what he was doing. I remembered being a scared 12 year old when we were attacked and I thought the president was trying to protect us. I still think that’s what Bush was doing, but at what cost? Here we are still in Iraq, and what good have we done? Obama promised he’d get us out, but has he? It’s more complicated than Obama promised. War is such a complicated and permanent thing, that unless it’s necessary, we should not enter it. There’s a difference between stepping in when a country needs our help or stepping in when we’ve been attacked, but stepping in and having a full war are two different things.
I also agree with Schlesinger when he said that an imperial presidency was most likely to happen when dealing with foreign affairs. It’s easy for an imperial presidency to happen when it involves war because Congress and the American people often question their own judgment or how much they know about the foreign situation at hand. Which is why the president is trusted in foreign affair matters. The American people assume the president has done as much research as possible and has thought through the consequences of war, making an imperial presidency possible. And Bush is not the only president to do this. Both Lincoln and Roosevelt when beyond their Constitutional powers, but both did so on the idea that the American people’s safety was at stake. Roosevelt once said, “when the war is won, the powers under which I act automatically revert to the people – to whom they belong.” I believe Bush had the same mindset. He knew he was going beyond his own described powers, but he was doing it for the safety of the people. And most people don’t argue with his views to enter Afghanistan. However, an imperial presidency is dangerous when a president can use one war and one attack to base his reasoning for entering another war.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
The President, Congress and the Court
Justice Jackson said in his concurrence for Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. vs. Sawyer that, “presidential powers are not fixed but fluctuate, depending upon their disjunction or conjunction with those of Congress.” Justice Jackson clearly explains his opinions about the relationship between Congress and the judicial branch. He states that the president is under executive law. He also stresses that no one, including the president, knows the “limits of the power he may seek to exert in this instance and the parties affected cannot learn the limit of their rights.
When outlining the president’s ability to use power, he breaks it into three categories: If the president acts with implied authorization or consent of Congress, the president is using his authority and legitimacy to the maximum of his abilities. The president can also act when Congress has been silent, giving him more independent powers. When Congress is silent, it gives the president more responsibility. And third, the president can act against the expressed wishes of Congress, and have the lowest amount of legitimacy. Here, he felt that Truman acted on the third rule.
What’s interesting about Jackson is that he thinks the president should only have to act on the expressed views of Congress. The Judicial branch should act more as a power to help the legislative. When the president brushes the legislative aside, it can use the judicial branch’s power as a means to sway their expressed views.
As for the court’s power, Jackson doesn’t emphasis that a lot. He said if the court reviews the president’s plans as a first review, then that leaves the president vulnerable to attack and “in the least favorable of possible constitutional postures.” He also says that important issues may go out of the public light and pass away over time. He also said it is the “duty of the Court to be last, not first, to give them up…” In this case, the court is reviewing the president’s decisions for the first time and he is most vulnerable for attack, Jackson said.
I’ve always been taught that the three branches of government are supposed to be a system of checks and balances on one another. But here, it seems that Justice Jackson is saying that the president has the most power, the legislative serves as a check on the executive and the judicial is there when the legislative needs it. This doesn’t not sound like the checks and balances that I’m used to. It concerns me that Jackson feels that the Court’s role is so much less than the other two branches. The purpose for having three branches is so they can all check up on each other. If that isn’t there, then that means the president or the legislative branch is gaining more power than what is listed in the constitution.
The constitution states that the president receives most of his power from the allowance of Congress. Jackson agrees with this, but also lays out that the president has the most power and he can choose to disregard Congress. However, that will decrease his legitimacy. He also says that sometimes the powers of the president and Congress collide and the president and Congress argue about who has certain powers.
Again, when Jackson says, “presidential powers are not fixed but fluctuate, depending upon their disjunction or conjunction with those of Congress,” I think he hits it spot on. There are certain powers in the constitution that belong to the president or congress or the court. But there are often times when it’s unclear who receives what powers, and the decision to go into war is one of those powers.
When outlining the president’s ability to use power, he breaks it into three categories: If the president acts with implied authorization or consent of Congress, the president is using his authority and legitimacy to the maximum of his abilities. The president can also act when Congress has been silent, giving him more independent powers. When Congress is silent, it gives the president more responsibility. And third, the president can act against the expressed wishes of Congress, and have the lowest amount of legitimacy. Here, he felt that Truman acted on the third rule.
What’s interesting about Jackson is that he thinks the president should only have to act on the expressed views of Congress. The Judicial branch should act more as a power to help the legislative. When the president brushes the legislative aside, it can use the judicial branch’s power as a means to sway their expressed views.
As for the court’s power, Jackson doesn’t emphasis that a lot. He said if the court reviews the president’s plans as a first review, then that leaves the president vulnerable to attack and “in the least favorable of possible constitutional postures.” He also says that important issues may go out of the public light and pass away over time. He also said it is the “duty of the Court to be last, not first, to give them up…” In this case, the court is reviewing the president’s decisions for the first time and he is most vulnerable for attack, Jackson said.
I’ve always been taught that the three branches of government are supposed to be a system of checks and balances on one another. But here, it seems that Justice Jackson is saying that the president has the most power, the legislative serves as a check on the executive and the judicial is there when the legislative needs it. This doesn’t not sound like the checks and balances that I’m used to. It concerns me that Jackson feels that the Court’s role is so much less than the other two branches. The purpose for having three branches is so they can all check up on each other. If that isn’t there, then that means the president or the legislative branch is gaining more power than what is listed in the constitution.
The constitution states that the president receives most of his power from the allowance of Congress. Jackson agrees with this, but also lays out that the president has the most power and he can choose to disregard Congress. However, that will decrease his legitimacy. He also says that sometimes the powers of the president and Congress collide and the president and Congress argue about who has certain powers.
Again, when Jackson says, “presidential powers are not fixed but fluctuate, depending upon their disjunction or conjunction with those of Congress,” I think he hits it spot on. There are certain powers in the constitution that belong to the president or congress or the court. But there are often times when it’s unclear who receives what powers, and the decision to go into war is one of those powers.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Clinton on Kosovo vs. Obama on Libya
Both Clinton speech on entering Kosovo and Barack Obama's on entering Libya have many similarities. For instance, they both repeatedly say that their reasons for entering Kosovo and Libya is because it's in America's best interest. Both speeches discuss that when there is a tyrant that is hurting civilians who are unable to defend themselves, the United States must act. But more importantly, the both emphasized that they did not enter this conflict alone. Obama made every effort to stress that the United States didn't actually put any military regimes on the ground in Libya and that our allies, Spain, Greece and Turkey. Obama emphasized that the international community asked the U.S. to get involved, and when we have the means and it's in our best interest, we should. In my opinion, one of Obama's strengths was that he stressed that the United States is playing a supporting role in the conflict. At the time of his speech, he said that the United States would be handing control of the no fly zone to NATO. He also stressed that because of NATO's strong involvement, the United States was able to limit the cost of the operation for our military and American tax payers. Obama also tried to make the country's involvement in Libya seem shortlived by saying that it only took 31 days to really get involved, when it took a year for the world to get involved in Bosnia. However, at the time of his speech, Obama admitted that Libya's president hadn't stepped down yet. I think that's important to not because as Obama tried to make this look like a quick operation that just needed a shot and a bandaide, in reality, it was more complicated than that and the conflict wasn't over at the time of his speech.
Clinton's speech was very similar to this. He also stressed NATO's involvement and how by acting when the United States did, it prevented a war. Clinton, like Obama, stressed that the people of Kosovo were helpless and that their government was going door-to-door trying to hurt them. He emphasized that the American people and our allies had a need to help. "Ending this tragedy is a moral imperative," Clinton said. He then stressed Kosovo's relationship to the rest of Europe geographically, and how acting now was essential to prevent a full out war. I found it interesting that Clinton compared Kosovo to Bosnia and how the United States and its allies didn't act fast enough in Bosnia. Clinton stressed that we learned lessons in Bosnia, and that by acting now in Kosovo, we will be saving more lives. Obama also made a comparison, but it was with Libya and Iraq. As Obama continued to stress that it only took the United States and its allies 31 days and not U.S. military was on the ground, he said that isn't the cause about Iraq. He said we learned a lesson in Iraq, which is once you put military on the ground and get really involved, it can take you up to eight years before you are able to switch the power in the country.
With Obama's speech, I think there was a doctrine. I think he made his doctrine clear when he said that it's not the United States role to police the world. He said that America can't be involved in everything, but that doesn't mean we should NEVER be involved with conflicts. He said that when innocent civilians are being harmed and it could cause a war if our allies don't get involved, then the United States must act. But Obama also stressed limited action. He said that we should not cause unnecessary costs to the American people and by not putting troops on the ground in Libya, we saved lives. I think Clinton also included a doctrine. He also emphasized that the conflict must be strong enough in which innocent civilians are being hurt, and if action is not taken soon, then a full war could begin. Clinton's doctrine also included that the United States and our allies must do everything in our power to first solve the problem peacefully before acting with our military.
However, if the United States is going to have high involvement in Bosnia and Libya, does the United States have a responsbility to help all countries that are being repressed by their leaders? Obama said no. Obama said that it is not the United States job to police the world. However, that shouldn't be a reason to NEVER get involved, he said. Obama's emphasis was once again two things. 1) That the attacks were becoming a mass massacre and that he wasn't going to wait until the horrific images came to him that showed the death of innocent people. 2) He also argued that America was in a unique position to help, but not become overwhelmingly involved. The country to work with our allies to help cause mass hurt to innocent people without putting troops on the ground, which was unlike Iraq. He said that when America can do that, then they NEED to act. I agree with Obama that the United States cannot police the world. However, I have a hard time understanding how Clinton and Obama can justify entering Libya and Kosovo, but not other conflicts. In Clinton's case, I give him credit. He didn't act on Rwanda and regretted it. So when he saw that he could help Bosnia and Kosovo, he had no hesitations when deciding to help. Obama, on the otherhand, stressed so much that Libya seemed like a quick and easy fix for the United States. They came in, established a no fly zone, never put a troop on the ground and then quickly left. At the end of Obama's speech, I was left thinking 'so if we could go into Yemen or other countries and help them quickly with our allies support and never put a troop on the ground, then we'd get involved?' I agree that the United States should get involved when we can feasibly do so with our allies and prevent a crisis from becoming an all out war. I believe it is our need to get involved. But if Obama and Clinton are going to argue this, then they need to be ready to get involved with their allies in more countries.
I agree that America cannot police the world and get involved in every conflict. However, with the recent uprisings in Egypt and Saudi role in Bahrain, Barack Obama said very little. He said that they are our allies, but he didn't strongly address the fact that innocent people are being hurt. I think for Obama, and Clinton as well, there is a fine line when a country needs to try to work out their problems on their own before the United States should get involved, because like Obama said, we can't be involved in everything. However, presidents need to follow their standard of when they get involved. Look at World War II. Innocent people were being suppressed and hurt and America didn't get involved until we were directly attacked. Look at Rwanda. I understand we can't be involved in everything, but we need to set a guideline that says here are examples in the past when we got involved and we should have and when we got involved and maybe we shouldn't have. Then today's current world conflicts should be compared to those when making a decision to enter or not. America's past proves that the careful decision is not always being made or that we've failed to act when we should have.
Clinton's speech was very similar to this. He also stressed NATO's involvement and how by acting when the United States did, it prevented a war. Clinton, like Obama, stressed that the people of Kosovo were helpless and that their government was going door-to-door trying to hurt them. He emphasized that the American people and our allies had a need to help. "Ending this tragedy is a moral imperative," Clinton said. He then stressed Kosovo's relationship to the rest of Europe geographically, and how acting now was essential to prevent a full out war. I found it interesting that Clinton compared Kosovo to Bosnia and how the United States and its allies didn't act fast enough in Bosnia. Clinton stressed that we learned lessons in Bosnia, and that by acting now in Kosovo, we will be saving more lives. Obama also made a comparison, but it was with Libya and Iraq. As Obama continued to stress that it only took the United States and its allies 31 days and not U.S. military was on the ground, he said that isn't the cause about Iraq. He said we learned a lesson in Iraq, which is once you put military on the ground and get really involved, it can take you up to eight years before you are able to switch the power in the country.
With Obama's speech, I think there was a doctrine. I think he made his doctrine clear when he said that it's not the United States role to police the world. He said that America can't be involved in everything, but that doesn't mean we should NEVER be involved with conflicts. He said that when innocent civilians are being harmed and it could cause a war if our allies don't get involved, then the United States must act. But Obama also stressed limited action. He said that we should not cause unnecessary costs to the American people and by not putting troops on the ground in Libya, we saved lives. I think Clinton also included a doctrine. He also emphasized that the conflict must be strong enough in which innocent civilians are being hurt, and if action is not taken soon, then a full war could begin. Clinton's doctrine also included that the United States and our allies must do everything in our power to first solve the problem peacefully before acting with our military.
However, if the United States is going to have high involvement in Bosnia and Libya, does the United States have a responsbility to help all countries that are being repressed by their leaders? Obama said no. Obama said that it is not the United States job to police the world. However, that shouldn't be a reason to NEVER get involved, he said. Obama's emphasis was once again two things. 1) That the attacks were becoming a mass massacre and that he wasn't going to wait until the horrific images came to him that showed the death of innocent people. 2) He also argued that America was in a unique position to help, but not become overwhelmingly involved. The country to work with our allies to help cause mass hurt to innocent people without putting troops on the ground, which was unlike Iraq. He said that when America can do that, then they NEED to act. I agree with Obama that the United States cannot police the world. However, I have a hard time understanding how Clinton and Obama can justify entering Libya and Kosovo, but not other conflicts. In Clinton's case, I give him credit. He didn't act on Rwanda and regretted it. So when he saw that he could help Bosnia and Kosovo, he had no hesitations when deciding to help. Obama, on the otherhand, stressed so much that Libya seemed like a quick and easy fix for the United States. They came in, established a no fly zone, never put a troop on the ground and then quickly left. At the end of Obama's speech, I was left thinking 'so if we could go into Yemen or other countries and help them quickly with our allies support and never put a troop on the ground, then we'd get involved?' I agree that the United States should get involved when we can feasibly do so with our allies and prevent a crisis from becoming an all out war. I believe it is our need to get involved. But if Obama and Clinton are going to argue this, then they need to be ready to get involved with their allies in more countries.
I agree that America cannot police the world and get involved in every conflict. However, with the recent uprisings in Egypt and Saudi role in Bahrain, Barack Obama said very little. He said that they are our allies, but he didn't strongly address the fact that innocent people are being hurt. I think for Obama, and Clinton as well, there is a fine line when a country needs to try to work out their problems on their own before the United States should get involved, because like Obama said, we can't be involved in everything. However, presidents need to follow their standard of when they get involved. Look at World War II. Innocent people were being suppressed and hurt and America didn't get involved until we were directly attacked. Look at Rwanda. I understand we can't be involved in everything, but we need to set a guideline that says here are examples in the past when we got involved and we should have and when we got involved and maybe we shouldn't have. Then today's current world conflicts should be compared to those when making a decision to enter or not. America's past proves that the careful decision is not always being made or that we've failed to act when we should have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)