WRITE for ATol ADVERTISE MEDIA KIT GET ATol BY EMAIL ABOUT ATol CONTACT US
Asia Time Online - Daily News
             
Asia Times Chinese
AT Chinese




    World
     Sep 3, '13


SPEAKING FREELY
Obama challenges pathology of power
By Dallas Darling

Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing.

Given the immensity and enormous power of the US military, the greatest threat to global security since the end of World War II has not been nuclear weapons but the misuse and abuse of presidential military power. It was therefore a stunning surprise for civic constitutionalists when President Barack Obama announced he would seek congress's approval before using military force against Syria.

While opponents dismissed his reversal as indecisiveness, a lame duck presidency, even cowardice - "red lines" to a "yellow streak" - did he just challenge a pathological disease in which presidents have unwisely and immorally used military power?

The US Constitution states that the United States Congress has



the sole power to declare war and to raise and support armies. Yet presidents have used the armed forces in more than 250 instances outside of the US, [1] most of them having occurred in the last 100 years and without legislative approval. This prerogative is a pathological addiction in which the uses of military power has become totally attached to, and embedded within, presidents. The mishandling of presidential war-making powers has also been connected to exponential increases in destructive and lethal weapons and their institutions. These abusive and dictatorial powers have endangered both domestic and global freedoms.

"The President shall be Commander-in-Chief" clause, however, was never meant for the president to use military force if he believed an attack was imminent. Nor did it provide using the military and weaponry to initiate a preemptive conflict without a declaration of war. And since the commander-in-chief's duty was to only defend the borders of the US, using coercive military force for the purpose of gaining foreign territories and resources, intervening on behalf of businesses and corporations, enforcing market economies, establishing blockades and no-fly zones, restoring order in other nations, toppling foreign regimes, even striking at terrorists, were never intended.

A gradual militant, pathological sickness, or the inability to control and wisely use an ever-spreading and cancerous-like militarism that was initially created for the purpose of defending against external threats, has usurped constitutional checks and balances. Since the military-industrial-academic complex has been allowed to have an unreasonably large role in deciding important matters for the US (including political, economical, social, medical, cultural, educational, scientific and foreign policies), civilian control over both the presidency and military has been eliminated. Reason, dissent and theological resistance has been purged, and purity of language and ideas have become militarized.

Up until now, more recent presidents have succumbed to, and then internalized, this pathological disease known as total military power. Without congressional approval, they have preemptively sent armies and military forces around the world to fight short- and long-term conflicts, even major wars costing millions of lives and tens of billions of dollars. They have used their prerogative military powers to intimidate political opponents, congress and the United Nations. To maintain their popularity, presidents have used misinformation and fear, imaginary threats and intelligence estimates, and authorized military operations that involved overwhelming force against weak opponents.

The framers of the US Constitution, though, never intended presidents to have privileged military powers. Having only experienced an agricultural-based society consisting of independent freeholders, they believed farmers' interests in retaining their title to land would make them unlikely to support fiscally or militarily unsustainable initiatives. [2] They never envisioned an industrial-manufacturing-service-information-based society dependent on a highly trained and consumptive military, naval and air force; forces that would someday not only threaten the sovereignty and environments of numerous nations, but the very basic freedoms and survival of the US.

Initially, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry threatened to militarily attacking the Syrian government for allegedly using chemical weapons against the Syrian people. Then they suggested a possible missile attack that would either punish the Syrian regime or destroy several of its military installations. Now, and on the heels of Britain's historic "no" vote in parliament to not support another mishandling and misuse of military power, President Obama has declared that such an attack or strike against another nation should be debated in congress and then legislated. He finally recognized that Americans were "weary" of war and the importance of congressional authorization.

Another debate that should occur is an updated amendment detailing articles of impeachment against presidents that abuse their commander-in-chief prerogatives. Is not unrestrained presidential military power, where thousands of citizens are sent to be killed in needless conflicts, treason, or a type of levying war against one's own people?

Congress and the courts are also to blame, since they have abdicated their responsibility to preserve the constitutional role of law-makers in war-making. As for the citizenry (who also share in this pathology of power), new alternatives will have to be imagined while also critically engaging and dismantling the military-industrial-academic complex.

In announcing that the "country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be more effective ... if we have this debate," did President Obama just check his temperature and start to challenge the pathology of military power?

Notes:
1. American Military History, Chambers, John Whiteclay. (Oxford, New York: Oxford Publisher, 1999, p 168.)
2. International Encylopedia Of Environmental Politics, Barry, John and E. Gene Frankland. (New York, New York: Routledge Publishers, 2002, p 294.)

Dallas Darling is the author of Politics 501: An A-Z Reading on Conscientious Political Thought and Action, Some Nations Above God: 52 Weekly Reflections On Modern-Day Imperialism, Militarism, and Consumerism in the Context of John's Apocalyptic Vision, and The Other Side Of Christianity: Reflections on Faith, Politics, Spirituality, History, and Peace. He is a correspondent for www.worldnews.com.

Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing. Articles submitted for this section allow our readers to express their opinions and do not necessarily meet the same editorial standards of Asia Times Online's regular contributors.

(Copyright 2013 Dallas Darling)





 

 

 
 



All material on this website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written permission.
Copyright 1999 - 2013 Asia Times Online (Holdings), Ltd.
Head Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East, Central, Hong Kong
Thailand Bureau: 11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110