July 23, 2010

America's Viceroy

Hatched by Dafydd

Having failed to overtake Barack H. Obama in 2008's Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton was unable to realize her bitter ambition to become President of the United States; and she is unlikely ever to get the chance again. But through the perversity of Democratic politics, she may be about to be dubbed, as near as makes no difference, America's first viceroy... who is, as Wikipedia puts it, "a royal official who runs a country or province in the name of and as representative of the Monarch."

For McClatchy News reports that as all American military combat troops and all but 50,000 non-combat troops leave Iraq under the "Status of Forces" agreement with that country, the need for some kind of force protection of State Department personnel will become acute. And the Obama administration has decided that, rather than renegotiate the agreement to allow for protective military personnel to remain in country, the United States will simply create a civilian quasi-military security force under the command of the Secretary of State.

That is, Vice Commander in Chief Hillary Clinton will get her own army to play with:

The arrangement is "one more step in the blurring of the lines between military activities and State Department or diplomatic activities," said Richard Fontaine of the Center for a New American Security, a Washington research center. "This is no longer (just) the foreign service officer standing in the canape line, and the military out in the field."

"The State Department is trying to become increasingly expeditionary," he said.

The most identifying power of the monarch is command of the military; ergo, handing it over to a lower-level duchess is equivalent to putting her in complete charge of that corner of our foreign policy.

The introduction of a new quasi-military army under State's control doesn't sit well with the more liberal members of Congress, however; recall, the Left was expecting that Obama would gracefully declare defeat in Iraq and go home, allowing "progressives" to argue that the entire Iraq war was a catastrophe and a war crime. They were overjoyed with the agreement negotiated with Iraq, which clearly did not leave enough combat personnel to protect the mission.

But now, defeat is once again imperiled, albeit in a flagrantly unconstitutional way; and the Left is hopping mad:

Already, however, the State Department's requests to the Pentagon for Black Hawk helicopters; 50 mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles [MRAPs -- DaH]; fuel trucks; high-tech surveillance systems; and other military gear has encountered flak on Capitol Hill.

Contractors are to operate most of the equipment, and past controversies that involved Pentagon and State Department contractors, including the company formerly known as Blackwater, have left some lawmakers leery.

"The fact that we're transitioning from one poorly managed contracting effort to another part of the federal government that has not excelled at this function either is not particularly comforting," said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.

"It's one thing" for contractors to be "peeling potatoes" and driving trucks, McCaskill told McClatchy. "It's another thing for them to be deploying MRAPs and Black Hawk helicopters."

"I know there's a lot of bad choices here," the senator said, adding that she'd choose using the U.S. military to protect diplomats in Iraq. "That's a resource issue."

Claire McCaskill has a 95% rating from the Americans for Democratic Action and was one of the earliest and most ardent Obama campaigners during the primaries and the general election. Perhaps we should keep an eye on other ultra-liberal Democrats in House and Senate to see who else has little trust in the probity and command ability of Gen. Hillary.

Meanwhile, conservatives should oppose the scheme -- I would hope! -- as clearly violative of the United States Constitution, which vests all military command in the president, in his role as Commander in Chief. It's akin to giving a mere cabinet member authority to sign or veto congressional legislation: It subverts our very form of government.

Perhaps between the anti-victory liberals and the pro-Constitution conservatives, we can nip this very, very bad precedent in the bud and do what even McCaskill proposes: Just renegotiate the blasted agreement to allow a protective military force to remain in order to prevent our diplomats and aid workers being shot, blown up, or beheaded.

Honestly, we don't need an American viceroy.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, July 23, 2010, at the time of 6:56 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/4514

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Dafydd-

Meanwhile, conservatives should oppose the scheme -- I would hope! -- as clearly violative of the United States Constitution, which vests all military command in the president, in his role as Commander in Chief.

I don’t like the idea of Hillary’s Army either, but your constitutional argument is, I think, incorrect. The proposed military force would report to the Secretary of State who, last time I checked, reports directly to the President. That fulfills the constitutional requirement.

The Constitution doesn’t authorize a Department of Defense or specify that all military forces report via one chain of command to the President. Contra-examples include the Coast Guard, which reports to the Secretary of Homeland Security except during wartime, and the National Guard, which becomes part of the DOD only when activated.

It might be argued that the President lacks authority to establish a new military force without authorizing legislation, but that’s a different issue.

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 23, 2010 10:01 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Dick E:

The proposed military force would report to the Secretary of State who, last time I checked, reports directly to the President. That fulfills the constitutional requirement.

Except that the Left doesn't accept the concept of the unitary Executive; under their concept of this proposed arrangement, Hillary would "report" to the president, but Hillary's Raiders would not have to take orders from him.

This new army would clearly be operating in wartime (under the AUMF), in the country in which we fought (and are still fighting) the war. It's essentially a mercenary army ("contractors") under the command of a cabinet official, for which there is no precedent and no constitutional authorization. Nor has Congress any grant of authority to enact such a scheme.

What happens if Hillary's Raiders decide to carry out a military action that the actual Army opposes? Who wins? Do they have to shoot it out?

As far as the Coast Guard and the National Guard, they operate essentially as federal and state (respectively) emergency services until activated to federal service; until then, they're police and fire departments, CCC and ACE. But once actually sent into combat with a foreign power, both CG and NG troops are under the ordinary military chain of command, terminating with the president as C in C.

The Constitution states that "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States[.]" I do not believe there is a constitutional grant of power for the C in C to delegate this essential duty to a cabinet official, nor to substitute a mercenary army under the command of someone other than the C in C for actual warfighting duties.

The situation is so dangerous to internal stability -- imagine a power struggle between a weak president and a powerful Secretary of State, where the latter had his own army! -- that I cannot imagine the Court would interpret that clause so literally as to allow such an obvious invitation to dissolution of the Union.

We cannot have more than one Commander in Chief; and I am certain the original intent of the Constitution, that there be one and only one, would prevail.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 24, 2010 12:36 PM

The following hissed in response by: Bart Johnson

Haven't heard of any TSA people taking over the local armory.
Don't see a logical difference between the new group and the rentacops the FEDs have been using for decades.

The above hissed in response by: Bart Johnson [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 24, 2010 1:54 PM

The following hissed in response by: DK

Since the local armorty is under the purview of the National Guard (the Governor) until a National Emergency is declared and the Guard is Nationalized, the DHS has no authority to even be on the grounds of an armory, and Congress - up to this point - has not even seen fit to equip them with anything beyond sidearms and shoulder-fired weapons. It is, after all, up to the Congress to "...raise and support Armies..." (Art I-8), and any effort by the various Departments to raise, and maintain their own forces would have to be approved by said Congress; plus all officers would be subject to Congressional authorization and approval. Then, there is the requirement that Congress "...make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces...".

More and more, it seems that these people - the Obamabots - seem to think that they are an unaccountable aristocracy granted Imperial Power by the Nov-08 election. Even Richard Nixon never attempted to aggregate such power to himself and his associates.

The above hissed in response by: DK [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 24, 2010 2:43 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Dafydd-

Except that the Left doesn't accept the concept of the unitary Executive; under their concept of this proposed arrangement, Hillary would "report" to the president, but Hillary's Raiders would not have to take orders from him.

Maybe the Left doesn’t accept it, but I’m pretty sure Obama (correctly) considers himself boss of the entire Executive Branch and all its tendrils. Any member of the Executive Branch who chooses to disobey a presidential order does so at the peril of -- at least -- his job. That goes for everyone from Cabinet officers to clerks, military and civilian.

What happens if Hillary's Raiders decide to carry out a military action that the actual Army opposes? Who wins?

Obama wins. He decides which side he agrees with and tells the Secretaries of State and Defense about his decision. They pass the word on down the chain of command and, if orders are disobeyed, heads roll. We have recent military and civilian examples of people who did things the President didn’t like -- Stan McChrystal and Shirley Sherrod.

The President ultimately controls the purse strings of government. If he fires mercenary fighters and stops paying them, that would seem to eliminate the mercenaries’ raison d’être. Why would they keep fighting?

* * * * * *
As for other chains of command:

The Coast Guard is, by law, a branch of our military service, reporting to DHS. The Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines report to the DOD. The fact that they report to the President through separate command structures makes them no less subject to his authority as Commander in Chief.

The National Guard (at least the Air National Guard) can be called to arms at a moment’s notice. On 9/11, ANG fighter aircraft scrambled without presidential authorization and patrolled the skies, ready to shoot down anything aloft. That sure seems like a military force to me, and they report to the governors.

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 25, 2010 12:14 AM

The following hissed in response by: LarryD

May the State Department get the protective force it deserves.

But Congress needs to be the one who creates this force, not Obama. And Congress needs to budget its needs separately from the military budget.

The above hissed in response by: LarryD [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 26, 2010 11:41 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved