re: "Voodoo Science; Praetorians; borrowing to pay bunny inspectors; missed opportunities; and more."

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog and Daybook.") dealt with several topics of interest.

Money quote(s):

"(T)the Iron Law of Bureaucracy applies to military and policy organizations, particularly in peace time; it’s not quite so visible or severe because the standards for admission to the organization can and often are kept high, and the Mamelukes and Janissaries and Praetorians do not admit fools and cowards to their brotherhood; but of course that may change in peace time.

We live in a Republic founded by political leaders who were very much aware of Roman history, who had read their Plutarch, who seriously debated the working of the Venetian Republic – in 1787 the longest surviving Republic in the history of mankind, not yet ended by Napoleon and the bayonets of the French Army – and who were quite familiar with the careers of Julius Caesar, Mark Anthony, Octavian, Marius, and Sulla, the Gracchi – most of whom are known to modern Americans from movies."

Iron Law of Bureaucracy?

Oh yeah, that.

Our military is an armed bureaucracy, at least some of the time.

"The French want us to sit on Fritz. The Germans like having Americans spend money in Germany, and not having to have a large Wehrmacht. The troops like it in Europe. The taxpayers have never read George Washington’s advice on entangling alliances and not being involved in overseas territorial disputes. So it goes."

The taxpayers (and their representatives) in the immediate post-WW2 period should, perhaps, be forgiven their understandable desire to not have to come back and settle the Jerries hash, so to speak, for a third time; the second time being perceived as the result of their disengagement after the first time.


"Europe could afford Socialism because they didn’t need to defend their territory against Russia during the Cold war. It’s a tradition."

Likewise, Russia harbors lingering fears about various of its neighbors to the west; that too is tradition and it informs their view of geopolitics even today.


"The Marines acted without thinking of the consequences and must be made to realize that; but I have always believed that far more serious acts take place in every combat action. War is Hell. A rational army would run away. Those men did not run away, and I’d far rather have troops who urinate on the enemy than troops who surrender to get their throats cut while in captivity."

That about sums it up.

_____

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.

1/15

re: "The Entangling Alliance"

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog *") has some thoughts on NATO.

Money quote(s):

"We have transferred operational control of the Libya operation from a USAF general to a USN admiral, but the admiral is head of NATO. Presumably there is a logic to this, but I confess I don't understand it; but then I don't understand the necessity for the US to be in NATO in the first place. NATO is an entangling alliance. The warning against entangling alliances is usually attributed to George Washington, but we actually inherited it from Thomas Jefferson: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none." It is of a piece with Washington's warnings. The purpose of NATO originally was to keep the Russians from taking West Germany and going to the Rhine. NATO was formed by Truman during the early days of the Cold War when governments in Europe were falling to Communist coups and the Iron Curtain was descending. It became a military alliance with a formal structure as a result of the Korean War. In those days, NATO was a mutual security organization: an attack on one member was an attack on all of them.

When the Berlin Wall came down NATO no longer had a purpose, but the Iron Law of Bureaucracy took over and NATO actually expanded"

&

"(O)f course the expanded NATO must have more missions: it needs to justify its existence.

In fact it has no reason for existence. NATO is an expensive luxury we cannot afford."

re: "The Constitution and Libya"

Michael Ramsey at Opinio Juris ("a forum for informed discussion and lively debate about international law and international relations") offers his learned opinion.

Money quote(s):

"Every major figure from the founding era who commented on the matter said that the Constitution gave Congress the exclusive power to commit the nation to hostilities. Notably, this included not only people with reservations about presidential power, such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, but also strong advocates of the President’s prerogatives, such as George Washington and Alexander Hamilton. As President, Washington on several occasions said that he could not undertake offensive military actions without Congress’ approval. Hamilton is especially significant, because his views on the need for a strong executive went far beyond those of his contemporaries. Yet Hamilton made it very clear that he read the Constitution not to allow the President to begin a war – as he put it at one point, “it belongs to Congress only, to go to war.” "

This seems clear enough. Congress has subsequently, during the Vietnam "Conflict" undertaken to delegate a little bit of that power across branches of government to the presidency, in the War Powers Act. But only within certain expressly circumscribed parameters.

"The fact that our use of force is limited to air strikes should not matter. Limited wars were well-known in the 18th century (Britain and France fought a limited war at sea and in North America during the American Revolution). The U.S. fought two limited wars early in its history, against France beginning in 1798 and against Tripoli in 1801. So far as I know, every person commenting on these events at the time thought that Congress had to authorize any initiation of force, even limited naval attacks. (In 1801, Hamilton argued that authorization wasn’t needed because Tripoli, not the U.S., began the war; but he agreed that congressional authorization would otherwise be necessary even in the context of an attack on a single Tripoli warship.)

Thus the founding generation thought the Constitution reserved war-initiation power to Congress. How could this be, though, if Congress has only the power to “declare War”, which we may think refers to making a (now-outmoded) formal announcement? Why can’t the President begin a war informally, merely by ordering an attack, without a declaration?

The answer is that in founding-era terminology war could be “declared” either by formal announcement or by military action initiating hostilities."

Fair enough. Deeds then, when words would be superfluous.

"Perhaps, though, the President also has power to declare war (after all, the Constitution expressly says only that Congress has it, not that the President doesn’t, and it could be part of the President’s power as commander-in-chief). Returning to Hamilton, a key passage in his Federalist 32 argued that often constitutional power could be held concurrently by different entities. But, he continued, an exclusive grant of power would arise where concurrent power would be “totally contradictory and repugnant” – that is, when one branch’s exercise of a power would wholly undermine an express grant to another branch. Hamilton didn’t give the example of declaring war here, but it fits his model: war, once launched, cannot be undone without consequences. If Congress’ power is to decide when war should begin, it follows that the President cannot independently launch attacks."

That's one of the (several) drawbacks of the War Powers Act; aside from the "nuclear options" of denying funding to American troops under fire and engaged in mortal combat OR initiating impeachment proceedings against, variously, the president and/or the secretaries of defense and state.

"(T)he founding generation’s views are clear and have firm basis in the Constitution’s text: the declare war clause gives Congress the exclusive power to decide when war should be “declared” – meaning begun by “word or action.” In Libya, President Obama has “declared” a war – a limited one, to be sure, but still a war by 18th century definitions – without congressional approval. That contravenes both the Constitution’s text and the founding era’s consensus understanding."

So what is to be done? It would seem that "standing" to do anything rests with two bodies: the Congress and the electorate. It remains to be seen which one, if either, will act, if at all. Neither Congress nor the public wish to deny support to our soldiers, airmen, and sailors who are doing their jobs and going into harm's way. Been there, done that. But note the lack of any "bump" in the president's poll standings.

People (and congressmen) are waiting, giving the benefit of the doubt, but when or if the U.S. begins to take casualties, particularly if "mission creep" occurs and there are "boots on the ground," then all bets are off.