Some here may remember that I was very active in the Senatorial campaign of Jim Webb against George Allen in 2006. Besides the fact that I could not stand Allen, my reasons included several things often overlooked when people rallied around Webb because of his opposition to the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq:
1. Webb wanted to rebuild the American middle class
2. Webb wanted to see a restoration of the proper balance between the Congress and he Executive Branch, particularly on matter of the military, diplomacy and war and peace.
Webb has always been a thoughtful and articulate writer. Thus I want to call to the attention of this community a new piece he has up at The National Interest titled Congressional Abdication. The title refers to the Congress not exercising its proper role in matters of national security and diplomacy.
To give a sense of the article, allow me to offer this paragraph in particular:
This is not the same Congress that eventually asserted itself so strongly into the debate over the Vietnam War when I was serving on the battlefield of that war as a Marine infantry officer. It is not the Congress in which I served as a full committee counsel during the Carter administration and the early months following the election of Ronald Reagan. It is not the Congress, fiercely protective of its powers, that I dealt with regularly during the four years I spent as an assistant secretary of defense and as secretary of the navy under Reagan.
Because it is not, Webb raises important issues that we all ought to consider.
Webb begins his piece by reminding us of an important reason for separation of powers and checks and balances:
IN MATTERS of foreign policy, Congress, and especially the Senate, was designed as a hedge against the abuses exhibited by overeager European monarchs who for centuries had whimsically entangled their countries in misguided adventures. America would not be such a place. The Constitution would protect our governmental process from the overreach of a single executive who might otherwise succumb to the impulsive temptation to unilaterally risk our country’s blood, treasure and international prestige. Congress was given the power to declare war and appropriate funds, thus eliminating any resemblance to European-style monarchies when it came to the presidential war power.
Importantly and often forgotten these days, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution was also carefully drawn to give Congress, not the president, certain powers over the structure and use of the military. True, the president would act as commander in chief, but only in the sense that he would be executing policies shepherded within the boundaries of legislative powers. In some cases his power is narrowed further by the requirement that he obtain the “Advice and Consent” of two-thirds of the Senate. Congress, not the president, would “raise and support Armies,” with the Constitution limiting appropriations for such armies to no more than two years. This was a clear signal that in our new country there would be no standing army to be sent off on foreign adventures at the whim of a pseudomonarch. The United States would not engage in unchecked, perpetual military campaigns.
I have now already pushed the limits of fair use, in the hope that you will take the time to read this thoughtful article.
There is a lot more than this. There is an examination of history, earlier and more recent. There is Webb's ongoing concern as expressed in this paragraph:
As in so many other areas where powers disappear through erosion rather than revolution, many members of Congress do not appreciate the power that they actually hold, while others have no objection to the ever-expanding authority of the presidency. Nonetheless, during my time in the Senate as a member of both the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, I repeatedly raised concerns about the growing assertion of executive power during the presidencies of both Bush and Obama as well as the lack of full accountability on a wide variety of fronts in the Department of Defense. These issues remain and still call for resolution.
I am far from an expert on all things addressed by Webb in this article, but from what I do know and understand I find him very much on point.
I think the piece deserved wide distribution. Were he writing it as a sitting senator, perhaps Webb's words would have gotten greater distribution. I do not know how much attention the media is willing to give to the thoughts of those who chose not to remain in office, as Webb chose.
Webb raises important question. After he lists a number of occasions where the Congress is not properly exercising its authority, he notes
AT BOTTOM, what we have witnessed in these instances, as with many others, is a breakdown of our constitutional process
He argues that having policies such as our actions with respect to Libya vetted through the Congress will give those actions greater weight in the eyes of the rest of the world, because
the international community will know that America is united and not acting merely at the discretion of one individual.
There is of course the problem that Webb does not address, which is the attitude made clear by Sen. McConnell of his intent to insure that Obama not be successful. The pure obstructionism of Republicans, including in the Senate, and amplified by the self-aggrandizing behavior of the man Obama defeated for the Presidency (McCain) and his loyal sidekick (Graham), the model intended by the Founders and praised by Webb breaks down.
I do not think that totally undermines his thesis. In fact, I think it can be used to simultaneously reign in the obstructionism of Republicans and hold administrations accountable to constitutional limitations.
In any event, I did want to call people's attention to this thoughtful piece.