Even if a war with Iran was necessary (which doesn't seem to be the case) is this really the military and diplomatic leadership one would want leading it? The problem lies with the war powers act. It was intended to authorize defensive capabilities in the case of imminent threat and increasingly it is being used for loosey goosey concepts like national security (economic) interest and as long as they meet the procedural standards of letting Congress know after the fact and they can wrap up their war within 60 or 90 days they don't need anything from Congress but the money.
This is not unique to Trump this imperial "war by fiat" has been embraced by every President since Nixon. It gives them the authority to launch nuclear weapons for nondefensive purposes. It essentially erases the Constitutionally defined role of Congress. Congress has more control over the distribution of weapons to Ukraine than they have over a President deciding to drop bombs over Russian occupied areas of Ukraine.
There is no doubt that the President needs to be able to respond quickly to direct threats on the homeland or an assault on American forces overseas but this, and most of the unilateral acts of our past imperial Presidents are not that. If Congress refuses to authorize, whether for prudent or just political reasons, well that just sucks for you Mr. President.
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 over the utter failure of Western foreign policy.
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.
I didn't say I was neutral. I said I didn't address Trump's morality one way or the other. The action stands or falls on its own merits, not on Trump's character.
I understand that you didn't write "I am neutral" or similar. I am just wondering if you think what the Trump administration is doing now is right or wrong? Simple question
I support the actions taken so far in regards to Iran, yes. But this is distinct from any feelings I have about Trump's personal character or motivations, which is what I wanted to make clear, as that's what it sounded like you were asking about.
Even if a war with Iran was necessary (which doesn't seem to be the case) is this really the military and diplomatic leadership one would want leading it? The problem lies with the war powers act. It was intended to authorize defensive capabilities in the case of imminent threat and increasingly it is being used for loosey goosey concepts like national security (economic) interest and as long as they meet the procedural standards of letting Congress know after the fact and they can wrap up their war within 60 or 90 days they don't need anything from Congress but the money.
This is not unique to Trump this imperial "war by fiat" has been embraced by every President since Nixon. It gives them the authority to launch nuclear weapons for nondefensive purposes. It essentially erases the Constitutionally defined role of Congress. Congress has more control over the distribution of weapons to Ukraine than they have over a President deciding to drop bombs over Russian occupied areas of Ukraine.
There is no doubt that the President needs to be able to respond quickly to direct threats on the homeland or an assault on American forces overseas but this, and most of the unilateral acts of our past imperial Presidents are not that. If Congress refuses to authorize, whether for prudent or just political reasons, well that just sucks for you Mr. President.
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 over the utter failure of Western foreign policy.
Is there a need for foreign policy? Because what happens on Earth, stays on Earth, since it is internal.
It is better to have global policy and cooperation https://www.democracywithoutborders.org/
So much for America First! The Israel Lobby and neocons got their war on Iran.
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.
If I understand you right, you think that Trump has morality/moral standards in this case or?
I didn't say anything about Trump one way or another, no.
That is the problem. Because you cannot be neutral here. Either you support his action or you are against it, based on yur own reasoning
I didn't say I was neutral. I said I didn't address Trump's morality one way or the other. The action stands or falls on its own merits, not on Trump's character.
I understand that you didn't write "I am neutral" or similar. I am just wondering if you think what the Trump administration is doing now is right or wrong? Simple question
I support the actions taken so far in regards to Iran, yes. But this is distinct from any feelings I have about Trump's personal character or motivations, which is what I wanted to make clear, as that's what it sounded like you were asking about.
Over 90% of originally-Iranian Shahed drones are produced directly in Russia, so this war will not have much impact on Russia's invasion.
Amazing all these strict devotees to the constitution, but it’s absurd. https://noknowthing.substack.com/p/derangement-drives-hypocrisy?r=hibdz&utm_medium=ios