What about the war?

The Reno Anti War Coalition recently (June 2006) held a "meet the candidates night" in Reno. They developed a set of eight questions that are of interest to them. These questions address the concerns of many people with respect to our foreign policy, so they are presented here along with Glenn's answers, edited and expanded since the election.

1. If you are elected to Congress what do you believe would be the best policy for United States military involvement in Iraq? Why?

In invading Iraq, the United States has obligated itself to ensure that the people of Iraq have a government that will respect their rights as humans. At this point in history, the reason why we chose to invade is irrelevant. After many years of despotism, the Iraqi society is not prepared for rule other than by a despot. At this time in history there is no shortage of potential despots in Iraq. If the US made an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, all these potential despots would engage in a civil war that would dwarf the US invasion in terms of loss of life. The commitment of the United States to the sanctity of human life demands that we retain a military presence in Iraq sufficient to maintain the peace until the Iraqis can peacefully rule themselves. This may take a very long time.

2. Should capturing Osama bin Laden be a priority for the U.S.?

Yes. A low priority. Just enough to make it very difficult for him to survive. Once he is gone, some other potential despot will step up and fill the void. ‘Twas ever thus and ever shall be.

3. On September 13, 2001, Congress adopted a joint resolution authorizing the President "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001..." The Administration has broadly interpreted the phrase "all necessary and appropriate force" as authorization for domestic surveillance, indefinite internment of persons he declares "enemy combatants," and other extra-Constitutional powers. How would you balance civil liberties and the need for security in post 9/11 America? Do you believe Congress should check executive powers in a time of war?

The constitutional authorization for indefinite internment of persons in time of public danger is contained in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution. “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;”. Post 9/11 is apparently a time of public danger and the cases of the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay do indeed arise "in the land or naval forces".

The prohibition of domestic surveillance is contained in the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”.

Whether or not we are at war is irrelevant. Neither Congress nor the President have the authority to overrule the Bill of Rights. Congress is required to check executive powers only when the executive oversteps the powers granted to it by the Constitution. In this case, it appears that the President has exceeded his authority and needs to be rebuked.

4. Do you support the use of force in Iran? Does the President have the authority today to use force in Iran? What role should Congress play in this decision?

The use of force in Iran or anywhere else is predicated on a clear and immediate danger to the United States. Some reports in the press suggest that there may be such a threat in Iran, though the evidence is far from convincing. The president does have some authority to use force as detailed by Congress in the war powers act. The war powers act places restrictions on what the president can do and places requirements on Congress to review what the president has done and either approve or disapprove.

5. What should Congress do about apparent violations of the Geneva Conventions at Guantanamo prison, Abu Ghraib, and Afghanistan?

Congress should do nothing. Law enforcement is the job of the executive branch. Determination of guilt or innocence is the job of the judicial branch. The government should function as described in the Constitution. If there are people in the executive or judicial branch who are not doing their jobs, Congress has the authority to independently investigate and, if warranted, remove these people from office. The process is called "impeachment".

Congress has been remiss in not persuing this issue. In November of 2006, the voters rebuked Congress for this failure. Hopefully, Congress has received the message from the American people and will act to shoulder the responsibility it has shirked for the last several years.

6. On June 12, 2006, the House adopted a non-binding resolution "declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror." How will we know when the war on terror is over and what should the next United States Congress do to promote peace?

The "War on Terror" will never be over. There are at least two reasons for this. The first reason is that there always has been and always will be madmen who will resort to violence to further their personal agenda. As madmen, they can’t be reasoned with. They can only be detained or killed. The "War on Terror" will continue as long as we choose to not submit to the madmen and are prepared to resist. Unfortunately and however much we would have things otherwise, peace without the capability for violence is an unattainable goal.

If you need a second reason why war will never be over, please read (or reread) Orwell’s 1984.

7. Please give an example of an international conflict that was resolved peacefully. Is this a model that could be used regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict or any other conflict?

Glenn couldn’t find any international conflicts that were resolved peacefully. The conflicts that did not result in violence were resolved either because one side or the other credibly threatened violence or because a large sum of money changed hands.

update: We posed the question of identifying "an international conflict that was resolved peacefully" to a retired history professor. His answer: There is no record I know of showing a conflict being resolved peacefully without further repercussions. TR brokered the peace between Russia and Japan. It was hailed as a landmark at the time. But Japan secretly resented us for it and brought the matter up again in December of 1941.

Threats of war can truly bring peace. Exhaustion from war can bring peace. But usually someone has to die before either side concedes anything of importance. Witness the Falklands War. Now there is real estate really not worth dying for.

8. Is it appropriate that the U.S. spends about as much on our military as the rest of the world combined?

Comparing the size of our military budget with any other budget is not appropriate. The appropriate comparison is the size that our military budget is with the size that it needs to be to protect us.