Glenn Greenwald: War and Public Opinion

[Echo In Light]

But even with all of the "debate" over the war in Afghanistan, there are still significant anti-democratic features to it. Over the weekend, Time's Joe Klein, undoubtedly reciting what his hawkish government sources told him, trotted out a brand new "justification" for the war in Afghanistan: we have to stay in order to prevent India and Pakistan from going to war with each other. The U.S. government excels at finding brand new Urgent National Security Reasons to continue fighting wars once the original justifications fail or otherwise become inoperative: no more Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Still, have to stay, otherwise Inida and Pakistan will fight. As part of his stenography services, Klein explained:

Some of the best arguments about why this war is necessary must go unspoken by the President.

So there are deeply compelling reasons to escalate in Afghanistan. But they're secret. They "must go unspoken by the President." The American people have no right to know what the alleged purposes and objectives are of this war. They're supposed to fight in it (a tiny percentage, anyway) and pay for it with massive debt but they can't be told why it's really being fought. And, of course, one of the most significant prongs of this war -- the one fought with Predators and drones in Pakistan -- is something no American government official will even mention, let alone explain and defend. Recent escalations of that part of the war -- as well as ones being actively considered still, such as targeting a large Pakistani city where high civilian causalties are likely -- will remain strictly secret. That, too, "must go unspoken by the President."

It's true that as a Constitutional Republic, the U.S. is not governed by direct democracy. Political leaders are at times expected to exercise judgment independent of public opinion. And once wars are underway, things like troop movements and battle plans are legitimately classified. But whether to fight wars -- and the reasons they're being fought -- are probably the least appropriate decisions to immunize from public opinion.

The Constitution ties the ongoing use of military force to the approval of the American citizenry in multiple ways, not only by prohibiting wars in the absence of a Congressional declaration (though it does impose that much-ignored requirement), but also by requiring Congressional approval every two years merely to have an army. In Federalist 26, Hamilton explained that this Constitutional requirement is vital for ensuring constant public involvement in debates over war and peace. In Federalist 24, he described the need for public involvement in such matters as "a great and real security against military establishments without evident necessity." That's because the Founders were all too aware, as John Jay put it in Federalist 4, of the "variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/14-0

[Vinnie From Indy]

1. We are at war with Pakistan

The situation seems obvious, but it never gets mentioned by our leaders. We are at war with elements in Pakistan and the reason I think it is not said is the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons. The danger of acknowledging our efforts in Pakistan publicly could actually lead to far greater deaths if Pakistan begins to come apart and fundamentalists get their hands on the Paki nukes. It is my opinion that if the fear of loose Pakistani nukes are the compelleing reason for us to sacrifice so much, we are being made to hold the bag for the world's security. That is not right or appropriate IMHO. Surely there have been scenarios worked by the Pentagon and others that steers America out of Afghanistan unless the effort becomes FAR more of an international effort.

[Echo In Light]

2. Tumble weeds rollin'

[leftstreet]

3. K&R

[Echo In Light]

4. Bump