Well stated. I'll add that I believe our constitutional processes for 21st century security policy need to be updated from their 18th century premises.
I'm no fan of President Trump or of military intervention in the Middle East, but given where we were, the president was presented with as risk-free an opportunity as one could hope for to strike at an abiding strategic threat. I doubt we could have capitalized if there was a public call for congressional input. If he acted on vainglorious motives, it doesn't change the fact.
Of course, actions of such enormous potential consequences should be taken in an environment of bipartisan trust and consultation. Every effort must be made minimize domestic surprises even when seeking to preserve operational surprise. That trust can only come through responsible political leadership, which we don't have at the moment. As Joel suggests, we got lucky--so far.
In a more formal sense, I believe that whatever can't be done in advance in terms of deliberation and approval (still the preferred way) should be accomplished by automatically imposing additional oversight measures on the executive once certain actions are undertaken.
As for attacking Iran at the behest of Israel, I am well aware of our sorry history with the former. The fact remains that Iran, for many years longer than the Shah was in power, has openly called for the destruction of the US and Israel, and took steps hostile to us. We were justified in responding, no matter how far along they were in developing whatever kind of weapon.
That said, Iran is not all that different from other countries with whom we have suitable relations. I hope we can reconcile in my lifetime.
Well stated. I'll add that I believe our constitutional processes for 21st century security policy need to be updated from their 18th century premises.
I'm no fan of President Trump or of military intervention in the Middle East, but given where we were, the president was presented with as risk-free an opportunity as one could hope for to strike at an abiding strategic threat. I doubt we could have capitalized if there was a public call for congressional input. If he acted on vainglorious motives, it doesn't change the fact.
Of course, actions of such enormous potential consequences should be taken in an environment of bipartisan trust and consultation. Every effort must be made minimize domestic surprises even when seeking to preserve operational surprise. That trust can only come through responsible political leadership, which we don't have at the moment. As Joel suggests, we got lucky--so far.
In a more formal sense, I believe that whatever can't be done in advance in terms of deliberation and approval (still the preferred way) should be accomplished by automatically imposing additional oversight measures on the executive once certain actions are undertaken.
As for attacking Iran at the behest of Israel, I am well aware of our sorry history with the former. The fact remains that Iran, for many years longer than the Shah was in power, has openly called for the destruction of the US and Israel, and took steps hostile to us. We were justified in responding, no matter how far along they were in developing whatever kind of weapon.
That said, Iran is not all that different from other countries with whom we have suitable relations. I hope we can reconcile in my lifetime.