I agree with the core idea. If the U.S. is going to enter a real, ongoing conflict, Congress should have to own that decision too. The whole point was that war would require shared responsibility and public deliberation, not just one executive decision . But what about secrecy?
A lot of modern operations only work because the target doesn’t see them coming. Put aside the question of whether those recent actions were a good thing. I want to think about whether reporting to Congress is possible while maintaining an element of surprise. If you have to brief a large group of politicians ahead of time, secrecy seems impossible.
Here’s an example. During Hillary Clinton’s recent deposition, Lauren Boebert took a photo she wasn’t allowed to take and passed it along to be published. When asked why, her answer was basically: “Why not?” The rule itself became a political opportunity, she got the attention she sought and benefits from, and there were no negative consequences.
So imagine advance notice of a controversial military strike. Even a member who’s neutral on the policy but opposed to the president has an incentive to signal publicly. One leak could warn an adversary and kill the operation.
I’m obviously not against oversight. I’m wondering whether pre-approval works in practice unless it’s a very small cleared group or leaking operational intelligence actually carries enforced criminal penalties. Otherwise the requirement could end up making certain operations impossible rather than inspiring accountability.
here’s another thought, on what we are seeing in the news about iran specifically.
Trump’s position on regime change has kind of been all over the map. In 2002 he told Howard Stern he supported invading Iraq. During the war he spoke positively about it, then by 2016 he was attacking Hillary Clinton as reckless for voting for the Iraq authorization even though that Congress at least had intelligence reports claiming Iraq was an imminent threat. (We now know that was false information manufactured by the Bush administration to get Congress on board, but at least there was a process of persuading Congress.)
Now he’s ordered military action in multiple countries and is openly talking about overthrowing the Iranian government and urging the population to rise up, while also framing the operation as bringing “freedom” to the Iranian people. The Venezuela action was also presented in humanitarian or public-benefit terms for the people there.
I’m not even arguing the outcomes here. It’s just impossible to see a consistent principle behind any of it. The justification shifts depending on the moment, yet people on both the right and left quickly recast each intervention as a human-rights cause. At some point you start wondering whether the moral narrative is following the action rather than the action following a clear standard.
I agree with the core idea. If the U.S. is going to enter a real, ongoing conflict, Congress should have to own that decision too. The whole point was that war would require shared responsibility and public deliberation, not just one executive decision . But what about secrecy?
A lot of modern operations only work because the target doesn’t see them coming. Put aside the question of whether those recent actions were a good thing. I want to think about whether reporting to Congress is possible while maintaining an element of surprise. If you have to brief a large group of politicians ahead of time, secrecy seems impossible.
Here’s an example. During Hillary Clinton’s recent deposition, Lauren Boebert took a photo she wasn’t allowed to take and passed it along to be published. When asked why, her answer was basically: “Why not?” The rule itself became a political opportunity, she got the attention she sought and benefits from, and there were no negative consequences.
So imagine advance notice of a controversial military strike. Even a member who’s neutral on the policy but opposed to the president has an incentive to signal publicly. One leak could warn an adversary and kill the operation.
I’m obviously not against oversight. I’m wondering whether pre-approval works in practice unless it’s a very small cleared group or leaking operational intelligence actually carries enforced criminal penalties. Otherwise the requirement could end up making certain operations impossible rather than inspiring accountability.
here’s another thought, on what we are seeing in the news about iran specifically.
Trump’s position on regime change has kind of been all over the map. In 2002 he told Howard Stern he supported invading Iraq. During the war he spoke positively about it, then by 2016 he was attacking Hillary Clinton as reckless for voting for the Iraq authorization even though that Congress at least had intelligence reports claiming Iraq was an imminent threat. (We now know that was false information manufactured by the Bush administration to get Congress on board, but at least there was a process of persuading Congress.)
Now he’s ordered military action in multiple countries and is openly talking about overthrowing the Iranian government and urging the population to rise up, while also framing the operation as bringing “freedom” to the Iranian people. The Venezuela action was also presented in humanitarian or public-benefit terms for the people there.
I’m not even arguing the outcomes here. It’s just impossible to see a consistent principle behind any of it. The justification shifts depending on the moment, yet people on both the right and left quickly recast each intervention as a human-rights cause. At some point you start wondering whether the moral narrative is following the action rather than the action following a clear standard.