• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Guy YedwabWar: What's It Good For?Isaac Asimov, a science fiction writer who came to the United States to the Soviet Union in the1950's, once said, “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.” Throughout history, people of allwalks of life and background have resorted on violence. On a small scale, violence can be calledassault, murder, or at worst assassination. On a large scale, however, this violence can become a war.General Tecumseh Sherman said “War is hell,” yet he still found it necessary to burn his way across theSouth, ravaging and destroying Atlanta, the heart of Georgia. However, sometimes the impetus for war takes hold of a people for anything from a misunderstanding (such as the
USS Maine
accident) to adirect and massive attack (as with Pearl Harbor). Sometimes war is engaged in to benefit a country(like the US deposing the Nicaraguan government), sometimes to bolster regional interests (like the USaction in Hawaii to support a government installed by the sugar-cane industry), sometimes out of humanitarian aims such as ending genocide (like the US in the Balkans during the 1990's) or regionalstability (like World War One), and sometimes out of defense (like World War Two). Wars such asVietnam, undeclared military operations such as the invasion of Grenada, and questionable sideoperations during war such as the invasion of the Philippines during the Spanish-American War underscore the need for there to be restrictions on war. If the United States is to hold its position as therighteous superpower of the world, it needs to enforce a rigidly adhered to protocol before determiningthe causes for war. The Powell Doctrine of the 1990s is an example of a step in the correct direction, but I believe it falls short of its task. In my opinion, any war conducted must originate from theexecutive branch but with the approval of Congress and the oversight of the Supreme Court, warsconducted must be conducted on the basis of a combination of overwhelming humanitarian or defensive needs, or in extreme cases to enforce international law. There must be an internationalcoalition supporting war and whose voice must be heard about the proper conduct of war. There must be plans and resources available to facilitate the status of the region after any military action. Finally,there must be a clear entrance and exit strategy which includes at least time estimations, probability of 
 
victory, and clear, in-depth intelligence of the region. The more of these principles are violated, the less popular the war will be at home and abroad, and the less effectively the war will be waged.Following the controversy of the Vietnam War, the House and Senate passed a Joint Resolutionknown as the War Powers Act of 1973. The War Powers Act, designed at limiting the executive branch's power to engage in military activity during peacetime, properly delineates some, but not all, of the measures I believe are necessary to restrict peacetime military activity. The War Powers Act statesthat the military cannot be used overseas except in emergencies or in a training or supply capacity. Itrequires that the President consult with Congress at the beginning and regularly throughout thedeployment of forces, and that within sixty days of any such deployment, Congress must affirm theaction or the action must be halted. However, it is important to note that the Vietnam War, which preempted this legislation, would have conformed to the War Powers Act. The Gulf of TonkinResolution, passed in response to a pair of alleged torpedo attacks (one of which was in Vietnamesewaters, the other of which turned out to be erroneous), supported whatever escalation of troop strengththe President saw fit. The language of the Resolution, which is extremely brief, employs phrases suchas “take all necessary steps” and “when the President shall determine” the end of the conflict. The War Powers Act, as currently written, would stop the executive branch from engaging in whatever engagements it would like if Congress would not pass legislation validating these conflicts. FollowingSeptember 11
th
, Congress passed a measure empowering the President to use whatever force necessaryto combat terrorism – and even broader grant of power. I believe that the alteration that the War PowersAct should add is that military strategies, such as the levels of troops to be deployed or time-tables,should be confirmed by the Senate Arms Committee in closed hearings. This would eliminate thevacuous permeability of “necessary steps” language in such resolutions. Congress cannot confirm theuse of force overseas and not know whether it is sending 50 troops or 500,000 troops; whether it is amonth-long engagement or one that will span several decades. Congress must take advantage of thechecks and balances system to share power with the President over troops overseas and at home. Ontop of this, however, the judicial branch must also play its part in the regulation of wars. Firstly, the
 
Supreme Court has not set an important precedent which I believe must be set; that the GenevaConventions and other International laws ought to be set as binding as our own domestic law. TheSupreme Court must also oversee the conditions of military prisoners and of military power in thedomestic sphere. In the Civil War, for instance, the President suspended the writ of habeas corpus for many suspected southern sympathizers. These political prisoners were often subjected to militarytribunal rather than open courts of law, tried by peers. The Supreme Court, in a disturbing ruling, issuedthe decree that it had no judicial power over the military tribunal system. Thankfully, this wasoverturned after the completion of the war, returning oversight to the tribunal system. This has returnedto the fore in the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many 'foreign combatants' held atGuatanamo Bay in Cuba have not been brought to trial years after their arrest. The Supreme Court,however, exerted its power to order that these prisoners be granted lawyers and due process of law.Since then, the slow process of justice has begun for some prisoners. In the Vietnam War, the other useof the Supreme Court also had a chance to come to the fore. One of the methods the executive branchuses to act unilaterally is secrecy. Our legal code, however, includes such protective legislation as theFreedom of Information Act, which stipulates that documents that can be revealed to the people withoutendangering lives must be kept open to the public. The press, as the agent of the public, must be givena mostly free reign to investigate the facts and examine the state of current affairs. The Supreme Courtand the Constitution form a protective barrier which prevents the government from lashing out at the press. During Vietnam, the press' ability to investigate the government came to the fore when the
 NewYork Times
released papers taken from the Pentagon, detailing that the executive branch had misled theAmerican people with regards to the severity and intent in Vietnam. The government sued, and tried to block publication. The Supreme Court, however, exercised its protective powers in a ruling whichdefended the press' ability to investigate the government. If a war is to be prosecuted in the correctmanner, it must be with full independence of the legislative and judicial branches, as well as of the press, from the executive. Acts such as the USA PATRIOT Act, the suspension of habeas corpus, andthe McCarren Internal Securities act undermine these independences. Without these independences,
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...