When you are in the business of being the President of the United States, war isn’t always a bad thing; after all, you are the commander in chief of the armed forces. Indeed, President Bush has become an extremely powerful man over the last six years. The “war on terror” has allowed the President to use his role as commander in chief to wage war in Iraq, while infringing on fundamental civil liberties in the United States. Bush routinely cites the war on terror as legitimate cause for holding suspected terrorists without trial, torturing them, and even spying on the American public. Of course, this is nothing new in American politics. Presidents as far back as Lincoln right through to Roosevelt, Truman and Nixon have used war to increase the power of the American executive.
However, there is an important difference between these presidents and the current head of state. While the war in Iraq will eventually come to an end, the war on terror could conceivable last for decades. Traditionally, when presidents use war as a pretext for extending their powers, they are brought back in line by Congress when the conflict has finished. Think of it as a pendulum. During war, it swings toward the presidency, giving him the power to carry out his duties as commander in chief, exercising “executive prerogative”, if you will. After the conflict has ended, Congress traditionally re-asserts its power, effectively swinging the pendulum back. This is a relatively healthy system, each branch of government keeping the other in check, as was intended by the framers of the Constitution. President Bush, however, seems to have found a loop hole. The war on terror has no definite enemy, no definite battlefield, and can never be fully won. Theoretically, presidents for decades to come could use the war on terror to legitimize the extension of the president’s power, permanently keeping the pendulum with the presidency.
Recently, the Senate passed a bill to begin to cut funding for the Iraq mission, which stipulates that soldiers must begin to withdraw in the next four months. It seems that Congress is finally attempting to pull in the reins on President Bush. But even if Congress pulls America out of Iraq, it does not mean the war on terror is over. If Congress truly hopes to keep the presidency in check, it must pass legislation limiting the possible long term implications of such an open ended war. It is, after all the duty of Congress to keep a “check” on the President.
However, there is an important difference between these presidents and the current head of state. While the war in Iraq will eventually come to an end, the war on terror could conceivable last for decades. Traditionally, when presidents use war as a pretext for extending their powers, they are brought back in line by Congress when the conflict has finished. Think of it as a pendulum. During war, it swings toward the presidency, giving him the power to carry out his duties as commander in chief, exercising “executive prerogative”, if you will. After the conflict has ended, Congress traditionally re-asserts its power, effectively swinging the pendulum back. This is a relatively healthy system, each branch of government keeping the other in check, as was intended by the framers of the Constitution. President Bush, however, seems to have found a loop hole. The war on terror has no definite enemy, no definite battlefield, and can never be fully won. Theoretically, presidents for decades to come could use the war on terror to legitimize the extension of the president’s power, permanently keeping the pendulum with the presidency.
Recently, the Senate passed a bill to begin to cut funding for the Iraq mission, which stipulates that soldiers must begin to withdraw in the next four months. It seems that Congress is finally attempting to pull in the reins on President Bush. But even if Congress pulls America out of Iraq, it does not mean the war on terror is over. If Congress truly hopes to keep the presidency in check, it must pass legislation limiting the possible long term implications of such an open ended war. It is, after all the duty of Congress to keep a “check” on the President.
5 comments:
So are you saying that war creates an increase in executive power, or vice versa? I don't think many presidents have initiated a war to the same extent that President Bush has. I mean, JFK and LBJ got swept along into Vietnam, they didn't initiate it. Same with Wilson and FDR in the World Wars. Even the Gulf War was a much different kind of war; it was more of a large skirmish, but no occupation or even invasion was ever intended. And I think this has led Bush to seize as much executive power he can, especially under a Republican Congress. I would say in this case, executive power did lead to war.
P.S. Nice blog name.
I'm pretty sure the fundamental goal of congress is to represent the people of America. Since they reelected Bush it shows that they approved his policies. I don't know how this is possible considering his current approval rating (low 30's?). The American people have been duped into this occupation (its not a war. its an occupation) and now, years later, they've realized their mistake according to both the approval ratings and the recent congress actions that Ty mentioned. My point? there is a misconception that executive power is the root of this occupation. Someone gave Bush this information. He simply did not conclude that Iraq was arming. There was an agency or other individuals building this theory. I firmly believe that if one person was given the power to run a country or even the entire world (in an idealistic society) they would do so more effectively than the way it is now simply through the application of common sense. This is where the 'communism works in theory' point comes in. Who thought up the domino effect? who thought up the war on terror? not the president of the united states. hate to break it to ya but you can't fight terror with traditional methods. you can't kill a culture's ideals unless you plan to succeed where Hitler had failed. these so-called wars cannot be compared to the world wars because the world wars were based on brutal actions (killing others because of their perceived shortcomings of being human), whereas Vietnam and Iraq were based on the theories that others were threatening the American way (ideals, lifestyles). 9/11 was simply a message saying that enough is enough. you are no better than us.
Executive power is not the cause. Lack of reason, self criticism, and accountability as a government would be a better bet.
I guess I should clarify a little. I`m not suggesting that American presidents intentionally seek out war for their on benifit. I'm saying that when war does happen, the "executive perogitive" exercised by presidents is often abused. As commander in chief of the armed forces the president becomes an extremely powerful person, and we can clearly see this with Bush. He seems to think that the constitution gives him unlimited authority in a time of war. I think that executive perogitive is a good thing in small doeses, but the"war on terror" is just too open ended to let him (and future presidents) exersise their perogitive indefinitly.
Post a Comment