Rachel Maddow in the first place, that he is a novice. "I'm not a military expert, I am not an expert in war," the popular MSNBC show host grants the same name Danger Room. But this did not prevent Maddow, who knows something about American politics, wrote a provocative new book that raises uncomfortable questions about how the U.S. decides to go to war in the 21st century.
Drift: the release of American military power, released today, argues that the U.S. made a mistake dangerous vision of the founding fathers of the commander is forced Congress to openly discuss and decide what wars to beat. Institutional constraints on the president after the Vietnam War - War Powers Act of Congress, the completion of the project, the famous doctrine of the Army General Creighton Abrams, that the reservations should be called to fight for a country feel invested in their war - were destroyed or ignored.
"Rational politicians are acting rationally to achieve a reasonable (if sometimes silent) political goals," says Maddow, "attacked and undermined our constitutional legacy of men like Madison." As a result, drift battle as ten years during the war in Afghanistan, no one seems to know how to finish.
"The way to solve this problem, make sure it does not happen again," said Maddow. "It should not be tax cuts in wartime. War must be paid for something other than an emergency supplementary budget bill. We should not be free to see the American victims, whether soldiers who are injured or if they are repatriated from the United States. We do not need to be protected from this stuff. And we are protected, because the politicians do not want to explain and discuss the costs. There should be a civilian political responsibility for what we do during the war. "
Maddow book is essentially dependent on the prospects for the base generation. All political movements claim the founders of America would have done things their way. But why worry about what the founders thought about foreign policy? The world in which they face, and America, they have created very different than exists today.
"This process is important. Lot of thought went into creating it," says Maddow. "And we have dismantled what was the appropriate process with much less thought."
This results in some Maddow formalism. The drift is very clear on the constitutional process Maddow wants U.S. politicians to follow before the war. But, in addition to allocating a truism that war as a rule, do not go well, it's almost agnostic about what the war are fighting, or what the national interest. Readers do not receive the doctrine of Drift Maddow. What are the dangers in today's world, military duty, the United States to face? Age 9/11 affected by the demolition, which would have a sober, as national security, which keeps on the move?
Maddow makes no apologies for writing a book primarily on the constitutional and legal procedure to declare war. "I really want to focus on whether or not we are able to make good decisions about when and how we use force, and whether or not our decisions regarding the army made democratically. Whether or not we have political control of the founders of the type provided by a and how to use the army, "she said." National interests are much more is in the process, we were ready to discuss it. We were ready, in the process of radical change, and quickly, as if it has nothing to do with whether or not our national interest is served. "
It's not just punt Maddow. The book essentially ends before 9/11, so that actually makes George W. Bush and Barack Obama will pass. "This transformation of the relationship of America to handle the use of military force was a kind of complete in 2001," she said.
"We made some changes between Vietnam and 2001 who did what we did after the 2001 values, and that does not feel right for the American people," Maddow continued. "By keeping two of the longest conflict in American history of the earth at the same time and not noticing when one of them ends? With only one percent of the population, struggle with these things and make three, four, five deployments? It does not feel good people" .
For Maddow, the right process for the war looks like. The President put forward the case to the nation about the reasons for launching this war is appropriate and necessary. Congress breaks in the segregation cases incessantly, good arguments and bad drops, every legislator is on file with his views. Somewhere during the last war, it is clear to everyone. Congress voted to officially declare war or against the formal declaration of war. The President respects the decision in any case.
If the current president and Congress followed suit, it would be George W. Bush during the first Gulf War. Nevertheless, many pages Maddow is going to take Bush to task for not seeking an immediate formal declaration of war by Congress.
Maddow suggested that Congress would limit the president to start a war, dumb ass. This, of course, that the founders thought. But is it? Today, lawmakers have often heard the warlike than the presidents and the last debate in Congress on Libya, Syria and Iran show.
"I think it is a direct consequence of the fact that Congress assumed that it has no real power if we go to war, Maddow is responsible." The point of responsibility for the Congress war-making, in fact, responsible, and not the relationship with the president. It is whether members of Congress think it's their job to decide to go to war. When members of Congress get out of their hind legs and take this responsibility, we end up with a big, strong, lively discussions where people are forced to make good arguments and bad arguments are detected and ridiculed. "
The book contains some inaccuracies. (Retired Admiral John Poindexter is not the Navy, the Air Force next-generation bomber might be settled, not really "deleted", and it will not only be carrying nuclear weapons, Indian tribes may be surprised to learn that " Jefferson prudence against [the war] ruled this country a half century. ") and liberals will find all the usual villains, including Ronald Reagan, Dick Cheney and DynCorp.
Drift also has problems with the Snark. On television, Maddow mix of sarcasm in his invective. It's funny to watch, and he keeps his occasional attacks from falling into the liberal painful ardor. But it does not work very well in the book. Maddow reads the description of waste, sewage expensive in the United States was built in Iraq as "the transformation of plants, that shit does not cure shit." -. It's funny the first time when she questioned the payment of Homeland Security dollars to write, "Take that Oyster Bay," or to expand the program life of nuclear weapons schlep acronym - OK, we get.
Nevertheless, the book raises fundamental questions about the process that the U.S. is now a war that is almost never asked for the media - which, in turn, aggravates Maddow identifies institutional drift. Hosts cable news, as a rule, do not call in terms of "think creatively" about how to reduce the bloated state of security created after 9/11.
"There is a decision that each by itself would not be a land of stunning," said Maddow. "The military cover your potatoes. Do not use the drones in the secret - especially so that we can openly discuss whether we should use them. Do not use the CIA as a branch of the army and use it as intelligence. Stop maintaining Trigger Cold War stockpiles of nuclear weapons. "
But put them all together, and Maddow have a program to radically change the security apparatus, and the U.S.. Not bad for those who said that she was "not a military expert."
0 comments:
Post a Comment