# Contact info submission url: exile-blog.blogspot.com site_owner: address1: address2: city: state: country: postal_code: phone_number: display_email: site_name: site_description: The Exile

E-Mail Me

My Twitter

Top Blogs

LeftWing2

Campaign 4 Public Ownership

FASO

FASSIT

Mothers For Justice

Ian Josephs

UKSecretCourt's Videos

Unity-Injustice




Chris Paul

David Lindsay

Heresy Corner

Machetera

Martin Meenagh

Neil Clark

Organised Rage

Renegade Eye

Serb Blog

Splintered Sunrise

Star of Vergina

Unrepentant Communist

Agitprop

British Politics

Censorship 01

Collaborators

Gimlet

Imperialism

Memories

Mexico

New Britain 01

New Britain 02

Sleaze

Social Work Industry

Wankblogs

Working Class

Atom Feed

XML Feed





04 April 2006
Soldiers who can say no.
Max Hastings has posted an interesting article on the Guardian's blog page. In it he argues that many professional soldiers on both sides of the Atlantic were dubious, to say the least, about the wars against Afghnaistan and Iraq. His key paragraph reads:
Perhaps the most important lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan is that senior soldiers on both sides of the Atlantic should be braver about saying no. Armed forces are the servants of democratic governments. But their commanders should recognise a constitutional duty to dig in their heels when invited by politicians to undertake operations they perceive as militarily unsound. This the 2003 Iraq invasion emphatically was, because of the US government's refusal meaningfully to address "phase IV" occupation planning.
I must admit that I sympathise with the sentiments expressed in this article, but am very, very dubious about this conclusion. If we take the argument to its logical end, then such ideas could be used to justify coups and rumours of coups. The streets of many Latin American capitals have seen more than their fair share of dead, legitimate politicians, and soldiers who claim that they had a duty to uphold some principle or other.

Clearly Max Hastings is not advocating this, but the problem with his argument is that once a principle is established it can then be used for venal, as well as noble, purposes. Giving the armed forces a constitutional role in policy making - for that is what this article is about - could lead down a dangerous and slippery path that is best avoided altogether.

It makes far more sense to argue that it is Parliament's role to oversee the executive, and that Parliament has failed in that duty. One might argue that the Royal Prerogatives that are currently held by the Prime Minister, such as the power to declare war, should be in Parliament's hands. It might also be argued that the party system acts to prevent proper oversight of the government, since so many MPs are on the government's payroll. How to restore a proper balance between the government and the legislature is a legitimate debate that is long overdue in the United Kingdom.

However, what is not legitimate - if only because it is so damned dangerous to constitutional order - is a debate about giving the armed forces a veto over government decisions.
1 Comments:

It's my understanding that the U.S. military long ago stepped over this dangerous line, which is no mystery -- as they've been the conveyor belt of U.S. imperial policy to the latin american and world-wide military dictatorships for over 100 years. But now -- maybe tempered a bit by a little "reality check" called Iraq -- there is a concerted effort underway, by the same forces who are subverting the U.S. government at all levels, to instill in the U.S. officer class an ignorant "christian" elitism -- i.e., that the secular "liberal" politicans are ruining the country, etc., etc., and we must save the country from itself, etc., ad nauseam...

We're well-familiar with that line, thanx to latin american history. My point being, that this series of "white coups" which have dragged the U.S. into the muck since the assassination of the Kennedy brothers, is fast-accelerating in the direction of a more "classic" black coup in North America. Which any fool will notice -- duh. This is taking place now, in slow-motion, c/o the famous "Low Intensity Conflict" model. And part of it, of course, is re-directing the fear and insecurity created by the general crisis (of U.S. capitalism) into other channels -- like the usual fear of the Other.

Yanqui fascism is almost getting boring in its obvious predictability. Too bad most people still get all their nooze from the TV.

5 April 2006 at 16:34  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home