As promised, but I've got a hard deadline. Have to get the kids in 45 minutes and I'm working off the fly.
The problem with looking at terrorism as global crime as opposed to global war is our generation has the "War against Drugs" taste in our mouths. We all know how well that's gone. As I said to both Ryan and Badboy, prosecuting terror as crime is different in several ways.
1) It requires no war powers on the part of the President. All intelligence agencies, military, law enforcement, you name it, gather the information and our people either a) initiate a surgical strike or b) snatch the bad guy for trial. None of this needs blanket authority that the Patriot Act or the Defense Authorization Act gives the President.
2) It keeps Congress in the loop. As has been done since WWII, high level congressional members are briefed on operations. This ensures the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches, fosters a cooperative atmosphere, and diffuses partisan bickering at the top levels of the two branches.
This in no way removes how we view "rogue" states. My personal favorite example is Lybia in 1986. Rome and Vienna have bombs detonated in their airports. Reagan drops the warning. The disco in Germany gets bombed and within 24 hours Quaddaffi has bombs punching skylights in his palace roof. That required no war powers act, no trampling of Congress. It was decisive, effective and had minimal collateral damage. This scenario becomes particularly pertinent when dealing with "satellite" states like Syria. Make the support of terrorism supremely expensive and all of a sudden Damascus isn't so hip on the idea any more.
In the case that an invasion becomes necessary, (the example I used was the North Korea exporting a nuclear device used in a terrorist attack) then the President stands before Congress and says "We're in this together. This is what it means. This is what we need to do. Are you with me?" As opposed to once again, riding over Congress and dismissing the balance of power designed into the Constitution.
Another example I used with Ryan was the Reagan gem of manipulating Congress as opposed to ignoring them. Reagan would plop down in the Oval Office, chat with the American public about what he wanted and why Congress was opposing him, ask the public to call or write their congressmen to vote with the President on the proposed legislation, and cause Tip O'Neal to lose his mind. That's manipulation, and there's nothing illegal about that. One could almost argue that George W. is treading the thin ice at the edge when it comes to casual dismissal of Congressional authority. And the Patriot Act and Defense Authorization Act crack that thin ice.
Gotta boogie. More later.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I understand exactly what you're saying - far be it from me to disagree with a complimentary Reagan review. However, two things about the practical application of this approach. 1.)Surgically sending in the F-16's would still be viewed by me, and I presume by many, as something other than prosecuting terror as a "crime." It's not an invasion, and I'm all for it, but it's hardly a policing act, and "policing acts" are by definition the course of action needed when a hostile element is defined as "criminal", rather than an enemy combatant, i.e. the war time "enemy." Also, even uttering the words "terrorism is a crime" rather than "an act of war" is going to have conservatives and moderates screaming. That was the words and attitudes of one Bill Clinton, and we reaped the results of his approach on 9/11. Remember, the final line of the 9/11 commission report reads, "for years the enemy was at war with the United States, but the US was not at war with her enemy." I'm paraphrasing but that's quite close.
Now don't get me wrong, I agree that your three tier approach is sensible - terror camps are done with surgical military strikes; rouge states are treated as conventional enemies, met with invasion when neccessary; and three, you go over the heads of Congress straight to the American people when you do both. I got it. BUT, setting the table with "treating terror as a crime" will do more damage in my estimation, then allowing "the war on terror" to be associated with phrases like "the war on drugs." The action is the same, but I'm talking how the PoTUS adresses the problem, by name, in public policy discussions.
2.) The acid tone the extreme left - which unfortunately includes the Democrat leadership - currently employs will still ring loud with screams that a GOP president is side stepping Congress even in the event of a surgical strike. Politically they will lose, but this approach, while sound, won't silence them.
More later, I have some interesting stats to post that I heard today, gotta run ...
FR
Post a Comment