Centerfield

Very interesting find. The article takes issue with Posner. I suggested him for AG over at SF. Three flaws are unpacked questioning Posner’s view of executive power. Some good points, but none overly compelling enough to support any real shifts or rejection of Executive power during wartime situations.

For instance, in small groups, enforcement is more easily maintained and free loaders and offenders are limited. A group as small as the executive still has to answer to a larger group, and there are numerous examples of the executive drawing from many views. The idea of a consistent effort towards stated goals by the elected executive often requires the exclusion of extremist views and divisive behavior. There is a place for a certain degree of Spartanism. The smaller group can act quickly and law-abiding societies that marginalize (not ban or murder) unreasonable positions are often more secure. The executive is not a microcosm of the Congress. Eight years is a decent mark for progress of policy during which the Congress certainly has a role. Presidents must operate in a classified environment, making decisions it will be responsible for. Administrations have to make alliances and maintain loyalties while pursuing serious objectives it bears the weight for among voters. The executive’s Party and the people it represents have a stake in victory or failure. Ironically, so do all Americans. It would be a mistake to consider the executive a social group. While Mind Set is a danger, bi-polar mindsets in Congress fare no better. I would like to see where the Congress plots the deliberative course, or steers truer during wartime.

The comments are revealing. Some stake out oppositional views I tend to agree with and several find the contra-Posner position stated in the article, too Right of Franklin's quote about the little security v less liberty line.

I am reminded of the Cuban Bay Missile Crisis, which would have been unmanageable by Congress. Again, I want a rational group mind set when taking on mission priorities. The people decide the moral implications and react. I don’t think ideology ought to have much place in prosecution of top priorities beyond the responsibility to defend America within a moral code establish by the consent of the people. To this degree, the executive ought to be beyond partisanship and in this sense, Bush has created a terribly negative climate about trust. Executive power discussed above is about national security powers, not energy policy. Each administration controls classified projects, secret negotiations and covert operations. Administrations are not unresponsive to political factors and are judged eventually by the public for security results. Political fallout on domestic fronts can erode faith in foreign affairs. That is to say, many things can affect trust, but national security failures rank near the top.

To say that the people don't want security is strange. The Democrats wants to stop 100% of uninspected cargo and transport. Certainly, this shows a unity of concern regarding security. If the public wants increased security in a climate of extremist aggression, it’s not group thinking by the Executive or Congress when achieving results consistent with the Constitution.

Yes, leaders can be hasty, but perhaps they could have done more before the Crisis. In peacetime, Congress has more sway and often fails to delay incoming storms. Now we live in a quasi-war, at relative peace between the major powers. In such a state, administrations can't get lazy or be particularly stupid. They must be focused and deal with elements not sufficiently handled by Congress. There is a way for both Congress and the Executive to partake in wartime policy. It might take some bi-partisan group think for Congress to engage and it will most certainly require a new Executive to restore a trust, tarnished by partisanship and a power diminished by ideological thinking, a bit blind to the very realism it claimed was needed to see. Shall I hold my breath? Under partisan flames, I hope the Executive stays focused and understand that trust, increases its effectiveness and support a thousand fold. In such a state we probably would be blogging about something else and not worry so much about the possible harms of broad Executive powers during wartime.

At least no one called Posner a neocon.

Alot of good points there, Max.

...there is a way for both Congress and the Executive to partake in wartime policy.

Yes. Like at the beginning of the war. You know, even now, if Bush hadn't given up on trying to figure out where the facts lie, and gathered the energy to talk to talk alot with Congressional leaders, I'd be alot less worried.

I was disappointed at the President's Vietnam analogy because it's bad politics. It was flinging mud instead of light. There are rather more opinions about Vietnam than there are Americans, which is why he limited his comments to refutations of such analogies until now - it just tends to break the Surge coalition up farther.

it's no coincidence that US intelligence has been the comedy of errors you get from lying torturees since then.

News flash--it was a MUCH BIGGER comedy of errors before that. It began to deteriorate in the post-Nixon post-J. Edgar era with the "reforms" of '78 that were part reform and part complete idiocy, and became almost moronically opaque after "The Wall" of Gorelick and the Clinton admin went into effect, the one that separated domestic and foreign intel from sharing much of anything at all.

Good point Tully. I assume there were still lots of problems during and before Nixon.

As far as the Viet Nam comparisons, Jon is right Bush was better off leaving that one alone. The truth seems that extensive bombing won the Khmer Rouge alot of support. Yes, our departure sealed the fate on millions, but our strategy while we endured was counterproductive.

I suggest that Americans recognize we are in a twilight state of war. This will likely go on for years. Under such conditions, some new balance must be struck between the Executive and Congress. It appears that either Congress is sheep-like or overly polarized. Not the crew one would wish to send against Cyrus or even Lee.

Intelligence reform following Watergate, did not fix the problems and the slow leak of covert activities culminating in the Contra affair eroded public trust in intelligence agencies. The fall of the Soviets further decreased the value of coherent reform in the public's view. For Clinton, it was the economy stupid. By today’s standards far to little was done to secure America’s weak spots.

A quasi-war leaves no room for the lazy and negligent. Congress should act to fill positions vacant at Homeland Security. Worn out equipment must be fixed. Intelligence agencies must increase their synergy. Posner's position remains intact, but providing more judicial and Congressional review seems in order. In wartime, alot more security is worth a little less liberty if an end is in sight. I think the problem is that not enough people in government have the appropriate mindset.

If Sadr now threatens to call off his six-month cease fire, then place the bounty back on his head. Bobby has been right so far. Benchmarks don't happen on our timetable. It takes turning Sunnis first, to isolate Sadr. It takes ending the black market to pass oil reform. It takes a huge effort to take on the militias. Without Executive power, I suspect we would be looking at a much larger mess. When the crap hits the fan and the Democrats are in power, we will watch their use of broad Executive powers. As Tully said, the aftermath of Viet Nam created more than just Asian casualties. Reform must be supremely intelligent, or its back to square one.