A Pilgrim’s Digression

For months now, I’ve been trying to hammer home the fact that in a war with no discernible end, it is dangerous to grant a President near-unlimited power in the prosecution of that war. Whether the President is trustworthy or not, by allowing him to take liberties with the Constitution we provide future Presidents with the perfect excuse to do the same.

We see that appeal to precedent today with our current President. He justifies his most controversial powers–the power to detain Americans and foreign fighters as “enemy combattants,” without granting any due process rights, or even POW status; the power to eavesdrop on communications that either originate or terminate within the United States–by reference to precedent.

My argument is that a President Hillary Clinton can now do exactly the same, and probably more when she is President.

In an article today, William Arkin writing for the Washington Post, has made my argument stronger by pointing out that the Pentagon now wishes to change the name of the War on Terror to “The Long War,” as a more accurate name for what defense experts expect will be a Cold War-like 20-year plus conflict. Arkin quotes Army Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as saying that “Our estimate is that for at least the next 20 years … our focus will be … the extremist networks that will continue to threaten the United States and its allies.”

I want to just take a moment and excerpt some of Arkin’s article, because it is good stuff. When Republicans say Democrats don’t take the terrorist threat seriously, Arkin brilliantly argues that on the contrary, Conservatives take it too seriously while Liberals have it about right:

I’m questioning the ridiculous and baseless timeframe, and the characterization of the war on terrorism as either “winnable” or a war worthy of supplanting either the Cold War or World War II.

Ever since 9/11, President Bush and other government officials have been describing the war on terrorism as a long war, one equal to the Cold War or the Second World War.

The President, of course, argues for the “resolve and patience” to fight the long war. He is pleading for the grant of wartime power, hoping for the freedom to fight on behalf of civilization…

Let me be clear that there are two reasons I reject the long war characterization: I think it is intellectually shallow to compare terrorists, “extremist networks,” Islamic Jihadists or radical Islam with our enemies during the Cold War or the Second World War, who could have indeed destroyed our societies. Intellectually shallow sounds like a pretty weak attack, but I mean to suggest that this administration has the wrong vision of both the severity of the threat terrorists present to our societies.

Terrorists can not destroy America. [Emphasis mine] Every day we articulate a long war, every time we pretend we are fighting for our survival we not only confer greater power and importance to terrorists than they deserve but we also at the same time act as their main recruiting agent by suggesting that they have the slightest potential for success.

The Bush administration has been in panic mode since 9/11, and though it has tripped upon sometimes improved articulations of what it is doing to respond to the scourge of modern terrorism, it has both the wrong vision of the severity of the threat and it has shown itself, in four years of fighting, that no matter how much it articulates that the United States and the world must use all aspects of their power to thwart and defeat terrorism, the Bush administration is only comfortable with the military response, and it is only really happy with secret operations.

The Quadrennial Defense Review now exhorts the military to reform and retool to fight the long war, in everything from its business practices to its training. The backdrop of what the Pentagon is arguing is clear: Whatever constraints exist in the current world to fight need to be changed to increase operational flexibility. “New and more flexible authorities from the Congress” are needed. Old laws, like old Europe, need to be chucked overboard.

This is a dangerous new world we are facing, and it is dangerous not because of terrorism–terrorists existed long before 9/11. It is dangerous because our own leaders so fear terrorism that they feel they must push for expansive change in our society, our laws, and our way of life. Conservatives, harken back to your roots: fear your government, not the terrorists. Liberals: stand up to the flag wavers and accusers of appeasement and speak the truth, as William Arkin has spoken the truth. The way this war is being conducted–not terrorism–is the real threat to this nation.