dougnoll’s posthaven

Segment 1: Simply Incapable of Declaring War.

Our guest on this edition of The Doug Noll show is Dr. Brien Hallett, an associate professor at the Matsunaga Institute for Peace & Conflict Resolution at the University of Hawaii. Dr. Hallett began his career as an English professor but soon got hooked on the topic of war and peace, and ended up switching gears to attain his Ph.D. in Political Science. His latest book is titled Declaring War: Congress, the President, and What the Constitution Does Not Say.

 

Dr. Hallett tells us that the constitution says Congress should make the decision for war or peace, but that actually never happens. He thinks Congress is simply incapable. In fact, the U.S. has been unable to declare war since 1789, even though we have been involved in numerous wars since that time.

 

Segment 2: A Constitutional Duty.

Essentially the President is allowed to start a war without asking permission from Congress. If Congress actually undertook its constitutional duty to argue and debate over the declaration or war, we would have a much more public and robust discussion about whether or not we should use force.

 

Dr. Hallett believes there are two main reasons this does not happen.  First of all, for 5,000 years Kings and Emperors have made this decision. Everyone expects the war leaders to make the decision whether or not to go to war. Secondly, Congress is too large and busy, and its primary function is to pass domestic laws. It is not built to accomplish a function such as declaring war. It is simply unable.

 

Segment 3: A Fourth Branch of Congress.

If Congress is not taking on the authority to declare war, then the people of the U.S. have very little say on whether or not we use force. This is a fundamental problem and a major flaw in the constitution. Dr. Hallett thinks we should change the constitution and he is proposing removing the power to make foreign policy (and declare war) out of Congress and establishing it in an independent branch of government. This fourth branch of Congress would have 50 members and would be elected by the state legislatures. Their job would be to conduct foreign policy and review the relationships between the U.S. and countries around the world. They would identify problems early and solve them by peaceful means.

 

Segment 4: Declaring War: Congress, the President, and What the Constitution Does Not Say.

Dr. Hallett says his book is meant to be disruptive, and he acknowledges that his proposal is, currently at least, politically impossible. He is just trying to get people to consider the problem and look at alternatives. The first step is to start the debate. It is not a question of political will; it’s a question of political structure. Congress is structured so that it cannot worry about foreign affairs. It can’t do what the 2^nd Continental Congress did. That was a small group who would get together and discuss problems and find solutions. Today’s Congress is large and complicated - which is a good thing for domestic policy – but it doesn’t work for foreign affairs.

 

To listen to the complete interview:

 

Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

Military force shouldn’t be ruled out as a response to an Iranian assassination plot on U.S. soil, the top House Republican on intelligence issues said on ABC’s “This Week.”

“I don’t think you should take it off the table,” said Representative Mike Rogers, the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Rogers said other options would include rallying the international community against Iran or taking action against Iranian operatives in Iraq. Noticeably absent was any mention of aggressive non-violent or even peaceful ways of responding to the Iranian assassination attempt.

This is an another example of a way of thinking that is dangerous to the future of America. The idea is that violence or the threat of violence must be responded to with overwhelming pre-emptive violence. It rejects the law of lex talionis, an eye for an eye, which calls for restraint in the exercise of retributive power. One of the unintended consequences of having the most powerful military in human history is the belief that vexing problems can be solved with overwhelming, brute force. It didn't work for the Romans, and it will not work for America.

International relations has been a contact sport for a long time. But how foolish is it to consider a military operation against Iran? Iran poses no existential threat to the United States. Its government, while annoying, is in internal disarray. Its political, economic, and moral power is so weak that it must resort to terrorism and assassination to carry out its international agenda. It threatens to develop nuclear capabilities, but knows that Israel would not hesitate to snuff it out if the threat truly materialized.

Publicly considering military options against Iran is therefore beyond stupid. This kind of retributive, vengeful thinking has led us to a trillion dollar deficit caused by unbridled military spending and two wars in the first ten years of this century. Neither war, by the way, has turned out well for America.

The Iranians know that the US will not be flying Predators over Isfahan or dropping cruise missles into downtown Tehran. They are undoubtedly embarrassed at being caught in a clumsy, amateurish assassinaton attempt against the Saudi Ambassador to the US. But the idea that the US would respond to a botched assassination attempt with military force is ludicrous. First, the assassination attempt was aganst a Saudi official, not an American. It would seem that the fight would be between the Arabs and the Persians, not the US and the Persians.

Second, the US military budget is already stretched to the breaking point in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Does the Congress intend to come to the people of America asking if yet another war should be funded by an increase in taxes? Ironically, Mr. Rogers of the party that wants to dismantle government and elimnate all taxes, suggests that another expensive military adventure should be on the table. Fourth, even if the American people wanted a war with Iran, the vast majority of US allies do not.  A US military option is not a realistic or appropriate response to the assassination attempt.

Unfortunately, this kind of primitive thinking about the use of power permeates Washington.  One would hope that more thoughtful leaders would step forward to decry the wrong notion that attempted violence must always be met with overwhelming retributive violence. There are many other ways to respond effectively to this type of petty aggression. We need some maturity in the halls of power to prevent the further decline of America into a reactive, fear-based international tyrant.

Douglas Noll, Lawyer Turned Peacemaker, is the author of Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts (Prometheus Books 2011).