The obsession with the merits or flaws of the Trump administration often serves as a convenient distraction from a much grimmer reality: decades of systemic Western foreign policy failure.
The primary question is why the Western foreign policy establishment, across multiple generations and parties, has consistently failed to provide a viable plan to deal with actors like Iran, Russia, or the Taliban. Not to mention Israel's persistent failures to deal with groups like Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, etc.
By framing every geopolitical challenge through the lens of the current US election cycle, we successfully evade a much-needed audit of the 'expert' consensus that has presided the utter failure of Western foreign policy.
I am officially entering the Zero Pride Movement. I’m done repeating the names they want to distract me with. .
The system wants us divided, but I’m choosing unity. To my neighbors, my friends, and even those I’ve disagreed with: I see you, and I understand the struggle. We are in this together. How can I support you today? Im ready to sit down with zero pride. Zero ego and zero judgement. I'm ready to listen #ZeroPride #HumanAlgorithm"
I can't say I find myself caring. Indeed, I'm not sure getting approval from congress – some members of which are quite sympathetic to Iran – makes sense in advance of a surprise attack in the midst of a period of pseudo-negotiations. It's a leak vector. Even if no substantive details leak, the fact of a congressional classified briefing is itself an informational event. Process visibility itself is strategically non-neutral. The Madisonian ideal simply wasn't designed for high-speed, intelligence-driven, decapitation-style operations in a world of instantaneous media, factionalised legislatures, and adversarial intelligence services embedded in open societies.
There's no reason to presume a kind of procedural moralism. Legitimacy doesn't have to be seen to flow primarily from formal compliance. Much more sensible, in my view, to see it as flowing from consequences, context, and strategic necessity. The constitutional cost is acceptable in this case, and such costs are always on the table for reasonable evaluation.
Acting constitutionally and acting responsibly in the world sometimes diverge. The constitution is not a divine instrument. The moral responsibility to act does not disappear simply because reform mechanisms are frozen.
As you seem to get at in your final paragraph, the question "does this violate the constitution?" does little work on its own. Only when paired with "have these actions led to favourable outcomes?" does the former question do any actual work. We won't know the answer to that latter question for some time yet.
The obsession with the merits or flaws of the Trump administration often serves as a convenient distraction from a much grimmer reality: decades of systemic Western foreign policy failure.
The primary question is why the Western foreign policy establishment, across multiple generations and parties, has consistently failed to provide a viable plan to deal with actors like Iran, Russia, or the Taliban. Not to mention Israel's persistent failures to deal with groups like Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, etc.
By framing every geopolitical challenge through the lens of the current US election cycle, we successfully evade a much-needed audit of the 'expert' consensus that has presided the utter failure of Western foreign policy.
I am officially entering the Zero Pride Movement. I’m done repeating the names they want to distract me with. .
The system wants us divided, but I’m choosing unity. To my neighbors, my friends, and even those I’ve disagreed with: I see you, and I understand the struggle. We are in this together. How can I support you today? Im ready to sit down with zero pride. Zero ego and zero judgement. I'm ready to listen #ZeroPride #HumanAlgorithm"
https://substack.com/@thethirdlens/note/p-189599064?r=6kbyyo
I can't say I find myself caring. Indeed, I'm not sure getting approval from congress – some members of which are quite sympathetic to Iran – makes sense in advance of a surprise attack in the midst of a period of pseudo-negotiations. It's a leak vector. Even if no substantive details leak, the fact of a congressional classified briefing is itself an informational event. Process visibility itself is strategically non-neutral. The Madisonian ideal simply wasn't designed for high-speed, intelligence-driven, decapitation-style operations in a world of instantaneous media, factionalised legislatures, and adversarial intelligence services embedded in open societies.
There's no reason to presume a kind of procedural moralism. Legitimacy doesn't have to be seen to flow primarily from formal compliance. Much more sensible, in my view, to see it as flowing from consequences, context, and strategic necessity. The constitutional cost is acceptable in this case, and such costs are always on the table for reasonable evaluation.
Acting constitutionally and acting responsibly in the world sometimes diverge. The constitution is not a divine instrument. The moral responsibility to act does not disappear simply because reform mechanisms are frozen.
As you seem to get at in your final paragraph, the question "does this violate the constitution?" does little work on its own. Only when paired with "have these actions led to favourable outcomes?" does the former question do any actual work. We won't know the answer to that latter question for some time yet.