This thread concerns the ability of our political system to wage and win war. Hopefully, it is not a debate between "cut and run" vs. "stay and pay," but an analysis of the ways in which our government is ill-suited to the task of defense.

Seems to me that one of the reasons war has become such a socially divisive issue since the end of the second world war, is that the perks for properly executing then ending a war are not there for most governmental agencies.

In many ways, war is the ultimate ineffective government bureaucracy:

•cases of government waste in the pentagon are both well-documented and widely-accepted
•moreover a lame duck president-- like Nixon, Bush, LBJ or Truman -- has no compelling motivation to wind down a war.
•certainly the agencies producing the weaponry have absolutely no rational to finish a war down whatsoever, in fact they have a corporate obligation to support whichever presidential and senatorial candidates are best suited to keep the war going.
•The government, as my Libertarian allies will agree with me here, has little if any interest in responsibly cutting expenses when tax payer's dollars are concerned.
•the opposition party has a cause celebre in the war, therefore, a reason to keep it going, even and especially when it has proven disastrous.
•In short, the only people who seem to have a vested interest in completing the mission and going home ASAP are the troops -- who are at the whim of political powers more willing to send fathers (and mothers) on a second or third tour of duty than admit defeat.


1.) Do you agree that our political system -- with all the ulterior motives politicians deal with -- is a poor mechanism for waging war?

2.) How, on a political level, can we improve it?

3.) Should war be the dominion of private agencies who would, theoretically, have an interest in both saving money and achieving our objectives in a reasonable amount of time?

4.) How can congress -- regardless of which party is in power -- provide oversight on military affairs without compromising the mission?

1.) Do you agree that our political system -- with all the ulterior motives politicians deal with -- is a poor mechanism for waging war?

Very bad these days- in fact, I believe that every president elected since Truman has a vested interest in CONTNUEING war- instead of ending it. Without a war, it is very hard for some folks to get re-elected- "wag the dog" references will be fine right about now.


2.) How, on a political level, can we improve it?

Take this power away from the President- it has been proven to be abuse too many times- we need to remove the title of "commander in chief" away from the executive branch completely IMHO- just too much power in one man's hand, and too much motivation to abuse this power.

All non-defensive operations, where clear and present danger of attack, where we have not been attacked DIRECTLY by a known enemy in a known locatiobn- the president can not and should not be able to move more than 10,000 troops without a nation wide vote and referendum, followed by a 60% majority in both houses of the legislative branch. Totally shackle the president from another Vietnam and Iraq or Panama, or Chile, or Iran, and on and on of the list of horrible US failures overseas.

We need to remove all power to attack from the executive branch, period, and give it to the population, and even then a 60% majority of all REGISTERED VOTERS- not based on turnout- but actual registered voters- if we can't get an 80% turnout to vote for a war- they it simply is not worth fighting for. period.

3.) Should war be the dominion of private agencies who would, theoretically, have an interest in both saving money and achieving our objectives in a reasonable amount of time?

Absolutely not- the profit motive SHOULD NEVER be a reason to go to war.

4.) How can congress -- regardless of which party is in power -- provide oversight on military affairs without compromising the mission?

It should compromise the mission, because we have not had a real reason to go to war since WW2. We need to stop allowing politicians to decide on all this stuff- and move it back to the general population, the one's that really pay the price here.

Politicians simply can't be trusted with this power.

1.) Do you agree that our political system -- with all the ulterior motives politicians deal with -- is a poor mechanism for waging war?

I completely disagree that our political system is a poor mechanism for waging war. However, in a democratic system, wars better be avoided at all costs and they should only be entered as a last resort. When they are not they should have won clear popular support for waging the war. An example of this was the war in Afghanistan. Of course our power can slip by liitle wars that are won before anyone really questions why they are waged, but if they miss watch our. (positive examples Grenada, Panama) (negative examples Lebanon, Somalia). It seems always a bad idea to go to war with the votes of one of our two major parties. We have done it several times in the past (1812, Mexican War). It's too bad we are not more pacifistic. While winning a debatable war is politically feasible, losing one is devastating.

Our system makes it difficult to wage war. And it makes it difficult for the political powers to misuse our armed forces.

2.) How, on a political level, can we improve it?


We could make waging war as difficult to do as ratifying the constitution. We definitely need to restore some congressional authority over war. If the president needs to react in the modern world quickly to threats that face our country, that does not mean that we should hand over all authority over war to the will of one person instead of our legislators.

I don;t think it should be made more easy to wage and sustain war. That diplomatic tool is a bad one and no matter how right the cause, war is devastating.

3.) Should war be the dominion of private agencies who would, theoretically, have an interest in both saving money and achieving our objectives in a reasonable amount of time?

No way in hades. This is something that must be generated from our democratic system. We already have too much of private agencies and civilian contractors mucking around in our system. We have the tools we need to plan and define our objectives clearly and assess how effectively we can realistically meet those objectives. If we fail to use them we invite today.

4.) How can congress -- regardless of which party is in power -- provide oversight on military affairs without compromising the mission?

Congress should have the power to terminate military action. It should have unrestrained access to all information available to our intelligence agencies and armed forces. The authorization for war should return to Congress and they should have the ability to end a military engagement (with a reasonable leeway allowing for reality) and they should be able to alter the mission. The executive should carry this out and respond early to emergencies but should definitely not have a black check. Tyranny of the executive was a major concern of the founding fathers and they waited over twenty years from the declaration of independence to even create an executive branch of government. Congress as a whole should vote on these matters after strong public and classified debates.

One of the worst things we have done in the last 100 years is to allow our country to be at war without using the proper mechanism and authorization, a formal congressional declaration of war. And Congress should not feel like they get one chance to chime in. They should have the power to redefine or terminate the military engagement.

I'll answer this with one response: The Const requires a Declaration of War to fight a war--period; it does not recognize Executive Orders, the War Powers Act, etc. If we simply followed the Const and encouraged our leaders to follow it, this problem would have little life. Why? Make everyone, in both parties, sign on the dotted line and declare War, and you have concensus and everyone has bought into winning the war. If both parties and both branches, exec and legis, will not buy into the war, then the war should not be fought. Also, the Const clearly does not auth the pres to commit troops without a Decl of War. These little "skirmishes" from which we cannot extricate ourselves legally should never occur.

Our forefathers very well understood the power of the executive to wage war could not be unilateral and could not be essentially unchecked.

1.) Do you agree that our political system -- with all the ulterior motives politicians deal with -- is a poor mechanism for waging war?Yes with qualifications. Yes the military like any gov. bureaucracy is inefficient but it is the still the worlds best and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

2.) How, on a political level, can we improve it?
Take the politics out of war decisions were possible. If the press were better at lambasting polititians who score pork for their districts we would be better off. This goes for military projects as well – the Osprey comes to mind as well as hypocrites like Teddy K who votes against every new weapons system but FOR anything for Raytheon (headquartered in MA).

3.) Should war be the dominion of private agencies who would, theoretically, have an interest in both saving money and achieving our objectives in a reasonable amount of time?

The Pentagon has numerous systems to protect the taxpayer and many work well. That said the military is a big, slow, expensive bureaucracy and will never be “prefect”.

4.) How can congress -- regardless of which party is in power -- provide oversight on military affairs without compromising the mission?
Impossible. Politics and warfighting do not mix well. That said we can be sure it works better when the mission is clear and the public agrees that the goals and objectives are strongly in the national interest.

In Iraq the consequences of defeat are so unknown to the public – and some politicians seem to foster this – that many would just as soon pull up stakes and run.

1.) Do you agree that our political system -- with all the ulterior motives politicians deal with -- is a poor mechanism for waging war?

Certainly not. Look at World War II, for crying out loud.

There are wars and there are wars. Notwithstanding official rhetoric, the United States has not been engaged in a legitimate act of military defense since 1945. Essentially all wars since then, certainly since Korea, have been miltary escapades designed to increase the power and wealth of U.S. elites, with very scant basis in legitimate defensive purpose. But a popular democracy, which we have in some limited degree in the United States, is a weak basis for waging imperialistic wars. True enough, the big boys can thump on their patriotic tubs, and with the help of a compliant media can stir up all most any amount of fervor for an armed attack on the Hitler du jour. (And there is always a Hitler du jour, ever notice that?) At least, there are always enough proto-fascist knee-jerk patriots out there to wave the flag and create confusion with chants of "USA! USA!" And it's pretty easy to intimidate most people into Support-Our-Troops silence once the fighting starts.

But unless it comes off very quickly, as it did in Grenada, Panama and the First Gulf War, the people eventually catch on that nothing important to the popular interest, as opposed to that of the big oil companies, defense contractors, the Pentagon and others, is actually served by these wars, and the costs soon become unbearable. Eventually the chants of "USA! USA!" die out, as they have here on this forum. Notice how inactive the war debates have become? With one or two notable exceptions, the right-wingers here don't have the heart to go there anymore and defend the phony "central front in the war on terror." Even they don't believe it anymore.

That is why I don't think that any popular democracy, such as ours, is capable of waging long-term imperialist war. There simply is no political support for it, no matter how you structure the government. Take away democracy and suppress dissent with an iron fist, of course, and you have a fine weapon for waging all sorts of wars.

2.) How, on a political level, can we improve it?

There is no need to modify the political system. The press could do with some criticism, however, for its passive acquisence to the latest militarist escapade. My god, on MSNBC the caption on their newcasts was, "our hearts are with you," and there were billowing flags in the background. That was enough to make me puke.

3.) Should war be the dominion of private agencies who would, theoretically, have an interest in both saving money and achieving our objectives in a reasonable amount of time?

It's already bad enough that we have a professional military instead of one composed of ordinary citizens. It would be a real threat to our democracy if we ever relied on private mercenaries. Or if we do, they should never be allowed to set foot in the United States. The French were smart always to station the fighting elements of the Legion Etrangere outside of metropolitan France (with the exception of WWI). But seriously, the United States is too big to privatise its wars. For one thing, the taxpayers always have to foot the bill. For another thing, mothers tend to be unhappy when their sons die for someone else's dreams of imperialist glory, no matter whether those sons are draftees, volunteers, or contractors.

4.) How can congress -- regardless of which party is in power -- provide oversight on military affairs without compromising the mission?

There really has been no congressional interferance in the military sufficient to impede the latter in its mission, and hence there is no need to modify the political system. It's a big mistake to think that war isn't political. War is the ultimate expression of politics, and so the representatives of the people must always express an interest in it. But in any case, Congress must always have oversight of all forms of government expenditure.

I really think it is a testament to the extent of proto-fascism on this website that a number of interlocutors here seem to take seriously the idea of modifying our political system for the sake of being able to wage war more effectively. This is a page lifted right out of a Sturmabteiling recruiting pamphlet. This really reflects, I feel safe to assume, their frustration with our military failure in Iraq. Since we have the most powerful military in the world, by far, surely it would have triumphed in Iraq had not "mistakes been made" and had not "Congress meddled." Just like the Germans would have won WWI except for "betrayal on the home front," right? Likewise Vietnam, right?

Wrong. The Iraq war, like Vietnam, was a monumental exercise in folly and national arrogance from the outset. Not every problem can be solved by war, which is something that I hope people will remember the next time the U.S. government appoints some tinpot dictator as the next Hitler du jour.

1.) Do you agree that our political system -- with all the ulterior motives politicians deal with -- is a poor mechanism for waging war? Poor based on what standard? Your take on our political system's ability to wage war reminds me of Churchill's famous dictum:
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

2.) How, on a political level, can we improve it?
The key realm for improvement is in adopting the concept of "the Loyal Opposition", a concept that doesn't exactly seem to apply to the current Opposition. Less "gotcha" and more "get them."

3.) Should war be the dominion of private agencies who would, theoretically, have an interest in both saving money and achieving our objectives in a reasonable amount of time? Who pays for the private agencies to wage war? How much do we spend on auditing them? (Note that much of what Haliburton is doing over there now would have, during WW2, have been handled directly by the War Department.) How would this change the way our "objectives" are set? All you're suggesting is using mercenaries. While its true that they woudl have a greater interest in saving money, at what cost? What happens when the mercenaries decide that somebody else is paying better? What happens when the mercenaries decide that they'd rather cut out the middleman (the current gov't) and get direct access to the money?

4.) How can congress -- regardless of which party is in power -- provide oversight on military affairs without compromising the mission?
The only way they can do that is to accept that aside from deciding whether or not we got to war, they don't have any say on what the mission is. The rest of Congressional oversight regarding fraudulent use of funds, organization of the military, etc can certainly be tweaked. Perhaps the greatest, and least likely way of improving oversight, is to somehow remove the possibility of political grandstanding. yeah, like that's going to happen.

Bikerdad and Ted- I think you are going about it the wrong way- we need to UBER-POLITICIZE the war- make it all but impossible to invade a freakin' paper bag- UNLESS we are truly threatened =- like WW2- the population voted with thier feet- they signed up in droves.

In fact- that should be the way we decide now- we have to have soldiers volunteer for these missions- not just by enlisting- but you have to have say, 100k soldiers ready to volunteer for 2 year missions to a specific country. No stop loss allowed- that way, if it turns to liquid fecal matter as now- the soldiers can vote with thier feet as well- no one left to do the mission except Ted and a couple others - good luck with all that

In fact- I think an even better way would be a military vote of no confidence in specific missions. Allow all the soldiers there now to vote, right now, if they want to stay- if they don't- GW has 30 days to implement a pullout, with 120 days after that- no soldiers there, period, no matter what GW or any other president "deciders"

Too bad, so sad- game over Mr P- time for you to tuck your tail under your legs and admit you are an idiot.

I believe the soldiers are much, much better informed that our entire current administration, and should be able to over-ride a general mobilization like this one.

NOT to say they are allowed to vote on all orders- just rather- to stay at all- you can stay and obey- or you can vote to pull out, and up or down vote.

Righhhhht. Only, there's the problem of Eisenhower (Korean War), Nixon (Vietnam), Bush Sr (Gulf War). Your cynicism betrays you here CR.

"the war"? This thread isn't supposed to be about "the war", or did you miss that aspect of the opening post? As for the population voting with their feet, that must be why we had the draft during WW2.

Still, your idea about allowing the military to decide whether or not to deploy and such, yeah, right, that makes a lot of sense. Site rules dictate that I leave it at that.

No, they simply aren't going to waste time debating with brick walls.

Gee, if they aren't "ordinary citizens", then why should we care what happens to them? Perhaps because they are ordinary citizens? Your neighbors and relatives. But, I'm curious, what would a military "composed of ordinary citizens" look like, how would it be different from our current military? I'm seriously asking this question.


That boat sailed in 1801. In the First Barbary War Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify." That is essentially the exact same thing that Congress did this time. The power to wage war is neither unilateral nor unchecked. It only seems that way when you disagree with the war being waged.

1.) Do you agree that our political system -- with all the ulterior motives politicians deal with -- is a poor mechanism for waging war?
No. On the contrary, it seems to me that the propensity of wars fought by the USA, and its ally the UK indicate that they are well suited to fighting wars. How else could they continue to do so were they not?

Furthermore, there is the small question of victory, or lack there of. Not only is the USA (and UK) able to fight wars, but they can apparently successfully accomidate defeat. This ability to prosper despite poor military results has to be a effective demonstration of the superiority of the American political system as it has become.

2.) How, on a political level, can we improve it?
Define improvement... if you mean how can we fight fewer wars with our existing political system; then I don't see how you can. The notion of the commander-in-chief is as old as Pompey or older still and it yet still retains its supporters. Obviously the advantages of having one political and military leader, whilst leading to a lot of violence, tend to out weight the disadvantages.

Rome ended up as a dictatorship when it allowed one man to hold ultimate authority, but Rome with its ignorant populations and sluggish communications was easier to control than the contemporary USA. Without resorting to abject pesimism, I can't see how the status quo can get any worse. Democracy, the free media and instant communications allow the American population to keep a better eye on what is going on and remove trigger happy presidents from power. GW Bush may be a poor president, but he is no Sulla or Caligula and he demonstrates how borderline such elected presidents can get. Holding on to power by his finger nails, his days numbered by preordination, there is no way this 'commander in chief' can maintain the loyalty of the armed forces without the backing of the populace.

All things considered to the best of my immediete abaility, I don't see how, or why the American system needs to be 'improved' with regards to fighting wars. I can see a good argument for making the political system more 'inclusive' and for electoral reform. I can also see an argument for increased responsibility given how easy it is of a President to acquit convicted criminals, but these observations do not really impact on the nations ability to wage war.


3.) Should war be the dominion of private agencies who would, theoretically, have an interest in both saving money and achieving our objectives in a reasonable amount of time?
That depends on the type of conflict. I think there is a problem with private armies that hold no accountability to the democratic process, but within the parameter of enforced accountability, I don't see a problem with using private contractors.


4.) How can congress -- regardless of which party is in power -- provide oversight on military affairs without compromising the mission?
I don't know enough about the US congress works to answer this.

edited for spelling (I really miss the old spell checker)

Should war be the dominion of private agencies who would, theoretically, have an interest in both saving money and achieving our objectives in a reasonable amount of time?

I only have time to answer this one this morning. My answer is, our political system would cease to exist as we know it today under the above guideline. Political systems rise and fall as battle tactics change, and the above would place the loyalties of the army to the highest bidder, rather than the state. With a completely privatized army, there would be no way to enforce accountability. Placing it on a different angle, imagine if the entire police force were privatized. Who would hold individual officers accountable, and how exactly? Pay one privatized force to subdue the other? The word 'warlords' come to mind. It's a destabilizing "solution".

But ignoring that and assuming loyalty to the state would be possible, the government could accomplish public ends through private means without having to gain legislative or public approval, a disconnect of the public from it’s own government’s foreign policy. A completely undemocratic process....rather than the public holding power over the army, the president would essentially hold dictatorial power.

Can I not bullet-point style criticize our political system without being implicitly accused of preferring depression-era fascism? Geez.


Only, there's the problem of Eisenhower (Korean War), Nixon (Vietnam), Bush Sr (Gulf War). Your cynicism betrays you here CR.

Great example, BD: Nixon said he'd give us "peace with dignity" in 1968: seven years later, in 1975, we still had troops in Vietnam. Almost as many Americans died in Southeast Asia under Nixon -- who said he'd END the war -- than under either of his two predecessors. In fact, if you want to be technical about it, the war ended under Ford, not Nixon.

As far as Eisenhower, my answer to that would be that we still have troops in Korea today. Not saying that we should pull out of Korea -- or that we should have finished the job in the 1950s. Just saying that roughly this same *type* of ending to war occurs over and over again in our recent history, and I'm asking whether some flaw in our political system encourages that process.

And Bush Sr? Great example. Obviously, I could ask 'whose son is conducting what war currently?' But considering the ongoing Iraq problems of the 90s, can you say we ever fully disengaged with Saddam? We've been building up weaponry for that second coming for over a decade-- "Shock an Awe" was designed in 1996, according to http://www.alternet.org/story/15027/. As Einstein said, "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."

I, along with Ike, would like to propose that the second build-up to Iraq -- a war that may or may not have been necessary -- was made necessary by the political machinations that encourage war.



I agree, PigPen- I just asked this to see what kind of different responses it would field in comparison to the current system. Ditto all the comparisons to Sulla, Ceaser, Marius and whatever other Roman demagogues people brought up in this forum... hee-hee, forum.




I agree, but where would we be if we never had a defeat to stomach? LBJ's War On Poverty might have been a reality. (I know that sends shudder through the conservative branch, but think of what the same resources might have brought if dished out to the private sector in the form of Tax credits, assuming Goldwater had won the 1964 election). The Louisiana National Guard might have been here to evacuate New Orleans. The possibilities truly represent a veritable 'alternate universe' of history.

And yes, the USA has the ability to stomach defeat... kind of. Considering the fall-out from the 1960s, would you say America ever 'stomached' that defeat? Watching Swift Boat Veteran ads, we at least are still experiencing indigestion. Imagine the unity, the worldwide goodwill, the ambition America had after 9/11.... six years later, something on the order of 70 percent of the nation sees us as 'seriously on the wrong track.' Consider the good we could have accomplished if we had won Iraq -- or were at least winning in Iraq -- on a cultural level. I would say our pocket books can stomach defeat, but our politics, our collective goodwill, and our national huzzah suffer greatly from defeat, and will continue to do so for some time.

It seems a growing consensus on here is that the unilateral president -- he who initiates war without a formal declaration thereof from congress -- is a thorn in the side of our society's ability to wage war.

I would agree. Imagine how muted democrats voices for a pull-out might be if, in 2003, the war authorization act had clearly enunciated, to the wider public, that this may be a long-term commitment based on x, y, z scenarios. Instead, we got shock and awe, and 'greeted as liberators.'

Of course- all of your points were destroyed by another poster- but you still have to ask- what did those "wars" get us? Vietnam? Nothing- Korea? - could be argued that we get South Korea as a trading partner- but it is worth the cost to the US? Really though-since this was a UN undertaking- I give Korea a "pass"- since Stalin was pretty perturbed at what-his-face for this invasion.

Gulf 1? um, duh- it achieved nothing really- took one despot out of Kuwait to put some other despots in a Islam-fascist regime back in- oooo, let freedom (for the royal family, and no one else) riegn

Perhaps an even BETTER idea is this- if you mobilize troops, you are not allowed to hold office in the next term- automatic term limit of one for mobilizing, say, over 10k troops- ya, you can do it- but it will cost you your job- same goes for the declaration of war- if you vote for it- you are out of a job next election cycle- not allowed to run or hold office.

If you are asking folks to sacrifice thier lives- least they can do is sacrifice thier jobs. Perhaps as an added bonus- they also get to lose all thier worldly possessions- once again- why is it too much to ask of a lawmaker to give up everything he/she has earned in thier life if they themselves are asking others to sacrifice thier very lives?

Oh come on. The war is lost and everyone knows it. Or at any rate, 65% percent of the people know it.


An army composed of ordinary citizens would consist primarily of people who have jobs in the economy, and who are not full-time soldiers. We have this now with the National Guard and reserves, but I would like to see it with the military as a whole. For democracy's sake, I think that a military composed of ordinary citizens, people with important nonmilitary roles to play in life and society, is much better and safer than a band of professional soldiers whose main loyalty will alway be, let us be frank, to each other and to their commanders.

I agree. We can fight continuously and our 12 trillion + $$ economy barley notices it. In fact this “war” is called a failed “project” by some. That is a little work on the side that is not going well and now its time to pack up the toys and go home. We never even "mobilized" for this "war".

The psychological reality is Americans do not have the stomach for a long war and we will soon abandon Iraq. Never mind that our own Revolution took longer than we are giving the Iraqis (and we had help too).

But the world is just waking up to the fact of what this might mean. In a recent Economist magazine editorial some now see that the US public wants to really pull back from what one could call things that “are none of our business” and this will mean that other countries will have one hell of a time getting the US to come “fix” some problem they have let slide – Darfur come to mind. This will be troubling for much of the world that expects us to "be there".

And I strongly agree. Its time we come home and let the world go to hell for a few decades!

Yes our country is starting to show the effects of being led into the wrong war at the wrong time. Again the dreaded parallels to Vietnam resurface. #1. The United States ability to impose itself abroad is greatly diminished. (ca. 1970-1990) The myths will endure that we could have "won" if we hadn't have been undermined by peace mongers and weak-willed politicians.

And from a quote earlier as you expound about how easily our economy can absorb the costs of the war. so too could our infrastructure, social security system, and debt reduction programs absorb vast quantities of funds. And there is a real chance that these could produce better results than a civil war and the creation of a major new terrorist faction in the world.

I would just reiterate here, that our system is a sound one because it is so hard to wage war. And BTW war is bad. You HAVE TO BE RIGHT when you lead this country into war. It's like making sure that you actually have landing gear when you take off in a plane.

1.) Do you agree that our political system -- with all the ulterior motives politicians deal with -- is a poor mechanism for waging war?

Some of the above comments are a little simplistic and a bit too cynical but the general point is sound. Our system is a poor mechanism for waging good, properly conducted wars. Essentially the government is driven by special interests that are primarily economic and politically self-serving in character, including the military industrial complex. Also those interests may be religious or involve trying to influence us to serve overseas national interests as in the case of the Cuban and Israeli lobbies. A lobby that represents a thoughtful national interest is seldom able to achieve critical mass to counterbalance the special interest lobbies that are ready to sacrifice the whole for their narrowly focused part.

2.) How, on a political level, can we improve it?

Probably not very much. Improvement has to come, for the most part, from the bottom up. The mechanism of democracy is there but voters feel alienated from the process so they pretty much settle for business as usual. Anything to limit the political donations of special interests I would support. How about a $1000 dollar donation limit per person and no group or corporate donations, with a limit on how much a candidate can receive, including from himself(Pass an amendment if we have to). And lots of public venues should be available for candidates with definitely the reimposition of the media equal time provision.

3.) Should war be the dominion of private agencies who would, theoretically, have an interest in both saving money and achieving our objectives in a reasonable amount of time?

War requires a high level of accountability as far as mission and rules of engagement. Farming out the soldiering jobs to mercenary corporations who are strictly bottom line players is a strange way to conduct politics. Should we use private contractors to negotiate with other countries? It is wrong in principle and has an ugly track record.

4.) How can congress -- regardless of which party is in power -- provide oversight on military affairs without compromising the mission?

Frankly I don't get the question. Congress is there to provide oversight. Without oversight the military can quickly lose its political focus and follow its own internal logic.

Uhh, no explicit or implicit accusation. My point has nothing to do with fascism, everything to do with "for all the faults our system has, its still the best one that's been cooked up" If you feel that's an accusation of fascism, I'd suggest a little more watching puppies play and kite flying, and a little less time at Victims Anonymous.

If you want to be technical, Nixon didn't take office until 1969, and the last American combat troops were out of South Vietnam in 1973. If your hypothesis regarding "the system" keeping wars going was correct, then Ford would have charged to the aid of the South Vietnamese after the North abrogated the Paris Peace Accords.

I don't think we need to be exact with phrasing like "peace with dignity." The idea of "peace with dignity" was out there during the 1968 campaign. I haven't found the exact phrasing, but the meaning is there.

End to the war:peace::honorable:dignity

From the day he got the Republican nomination on August 8, 1968, Nixon talked about an "honorable end to the war," or peace. Like the phrase that came later, "read my lips; no new taxes," it was a catchy campaign slogan that was essentially hollow. Still it helped get Nixon elected. Unfortunately, as you have pointed out, he didn't deliver on this.



http://www.watergate.info/nixon/acceptance-speech-1968.shtml

1.) Do you agree that our political system -- with all the ulterior motives politicians deal with -- is a poor mechanism for waging war?

It is a poor mechanism, but then again all compromise systems are. Our system prevents the concentration of power in one (or a few) hands, spreading responsibilities amongst many. This makes it inefficient, but prevents it from getting out of control.

Then again, a popular war is just as bad. Politicians can hop on board the "cause" simply for political gain, ignoring the merits of the rationale behind the war. It cuts both ways.

The problem lies when there is an unpopular, yet necessary, war. I wonder what the American populace would have thought if they knew we were arming the British pre-Pearl Harbor. We, as a country, did not want to meddle in the affairs of Europe. Only the shock of Pearl Harbor brought the reality of the situation into the public conciousness.

2.) How, on a political level, can we improve it?

The system works. A popular war, although rare, is well supported by both politicians and populace alike. Nobody likes war. Heck, even the Revolutionary War was unpopular (especially by today's high standards) with the people. We had to bribe soldiers to fight with huge signing bonuses (sound familiar?). It helps if you have a charismatic leader to "sell" a war, just like anything else in politics.

3.) Should war be the dominion of private agencies who would, theoretically, have an interest in both saving money and achieving our objectives in a reasonable amount of time?

No. Private agencies would have the motivation to continue a conflict just to insure more business. That and the loyalty factor (I prefer loyalty to country over loyalty to "Dead Presidents" thank you very much) make this a bad idea.

4.) How can congress -- regardless of which party is in power -- provide oversight on military affairs without compromising the mission?

Congress provides funding and can cut off funding for an unpopular, unwinnable, or unnecessary war. It should not be involved in the day to day operations, but should keep an eye on progress towards the objectives.

I often wonder about that, too. Not only "unpopular but necessary", but also the influence of 24/7 minute-by-minute news coverage that can be skewed in such a way as to influence public opinion and make an otherwise popular, or even very morally just war unpopular. I'm not certain that the outcome of WWII (which most of us consider to be morally correct) would have been the same now.

For tiny example, when the Americans first entered North Africa, during the initial campaign of American involvement, we not only embraced the Vichy French forces that slaughtered our troops during the initial seige, but the anti-Semitic laws of Vichy remained in effect out of necessity, for fear of provoking the Arabs (no, they didn't like Jews even before Israel became a state). Imagine the reaction if something like that made headline news today.

1.) Do you agree that our political system -- with all the ulterior motives politicians deal with -- is a poor mechanism for waging war?
I see where this question is coming from, and while I must agree that there are a lot of varying influences on our politicians, I'm not convinced that that's a BAD thing. Checks and balances and more checks and balances are supposed to keep unnecessary wars from being waged. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to me that we have any problem waging war. Even when we don't declare "War", we're still bombing somebody.
The presupposition in the question is that we nobly start wars and then get bogged down politically and are unable to "win" them. I don't believe this to be the case. Declassified documents admit that our actions in Korea, Vietnam, and many other nations were intentionally formulated and instigated by the Centralized Imperialist Agenda, and the current round of wars are no different (except that they're still classified, of course).
As with Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers, too much of the lie has been seen through by the public and they've lost support for the war. Not because the system is ineffective at waging wars, but because the system is ineffective at maintaining the illusions necessary for manufacturing public consent for Imperialism by convincing them that it's something else. Any war that actually NEEDED to be fought wouldn't need to be "sold" to us the way we go about things now.
The New World Order needed Saddam out of the way because he'd stopped playing their game sometime mid to late 80s (AFTER they'd allowed him to gas the Kurds), so now he's gone. It doesn't matter what happens to Iraq or its people from here on, so long as they don't disrupt the oil flow...and it's flowing, go ask Halliburton. So it doesn't matter if the lie unfolds at home and the people demand the troops be pulled out: that was the plan from the start...the N.W.O. needs those troops to prevent Iran from becoming economically independent of western "civilization" by harnessing nuclear power for its electricity and selling ALL of the oil they pump.
It's interesting to me that when "right-wing" (read: more militant) people read comments like this one, they immediately jump to a "would you prefer all of Europe was under Hitler's rule?" or something, which really just proves my point: why can't you say something like that about the almost two dozen nations we've bombed since?

2.) How, on a political level, can we improve it?
Don't start wars based on lies that fall apart and leave our nation intentionally divided and therefore unable to do anything but what the Imperialists want: argue amongst ourselves until we eventually decide to "lose" (the Centralized Imperialist Agenda's objectives long since achieved) and pull the troops out.
Also, stop buying the Imperialist lie that we need to be waging war all over the planet to make ourselves safer at home. The reality is that we wage war for economic reasons (Wall Street's doin' just FINE, or the war would end TOMORROW!), and that we won't stop until our people are willing to allow their economy to take the hits it would have to endure otherwise ("Oh my god, higher gas prices?! You gutless liberal commie terrorist!").
Beyond that, I believe we should reinstate the draft. I used to believe it was GREAT that the Imperialists couldn't force me to fight their wars, but now I've come to realize that without a draft, we have an all-mercenary, "does it affect my paycheck?" kind of military, willing to do whatever they're told. I think the struggle for truth, justice, and peace would be far better served if the "conscientious objectors" were back in there, throwing yet another wrench in the works of the War Machine.

3.) Should war be the dominion of private agencies who would, theoretically, have an interest in both saving money and achieving our objectives in a reasonable amount of time?
I think this is a WONDERFUL idea! As is, we have companies like Halliburton intentionally running up their spending (and pressuring the system to continue the war indefinitely!) because under their cost-plus contracts, they get back everything they spend plus a percentage thereof!
If Wars were contracted out entirely, then we could take bids to achieve our goals from PRIVATE mercenary groups (and keep the department of "Defense" for DEFENSE), and if the war goes badly, then the private group takes the fall (Hurray, capitalism!) and we can accept bids to fix the mess.
Besides, we've already got mercenary groups like Blackwater taking many of the casualties so Fox news and the rest of the Apparatus can ignore reporting on them unlike when U.S. soldiers die (they're "civilian contractors" not important enough to mention), so why not go the rest of the way?

4.) How can congress -- regardless of which party is in power -- provide oversight on military affairs without compromising the mission?
It seems obvious to me, but we're here anyway: Demand a definition of "winning" BEFORE committing to funding the war!

We're allowing the Apparatus to perpetuate the killing (cha-ching!) by painting the Democrats' attempts to end the war (all a big deception: the Apparatus has a "Left" side and a "Right" side to the cage for your mind!) as wanting to "admit defeat" or "surrender" (or worse, to "micromanage"!), but by this logic, we've started an infinite war. I mean, didn't we go there to remove Saddam as a thorn in the side of the Centralized Imperialist Agenda and make sure there're no W.M.D.s lying around? Well, if there WERE W.M.D.s (besides the leftovers of the gas Bush I/Rumsfeld sold him under Reagan to kill Kurds), they're now out of his control and slowly making their way here, so shouldn't we be more concerned with policing our borders and inspecting our imports than what happens in Iraq now? Why not let them have REAL Freedom and Democracy and stop pointing the guns at them saying, "No, you'll have your Freedom and Democracy the way we SAY you'll have it!"...oh, yeah, right, 'cause that way we wouldn't be able to ensure a N.W.O.-friendly government...

Give clear definitions of the mission BEFOREHAND and we won't be arguing about defining it five years later next war...being Iran, of course.

Let me see if I'm getting you here: We're looking into an assumption that our political system draws out wars to the point of defeat:

And you're saying that, no it doesn't. Because if it did, a geriatric political lame duck like Gerald Ford -- who was ushered into office by historically unprecedented means, during a time of historically unprecedented distrust of the government -- this man, you are saying, would have re-ignited the discredited conflict and gone back into the jungle with the might of the US military. Which we had done for the past 15 years, unsuccessfully.

And if you would like to be technical, I didn't infer Nixon took office in '68. I said that, during the 68 campaign he said he'd give us 'peace with dignity." The dangler's a lil unclear, but the context clarifies it.

1.) Do you agree that our political system -- with all the ulterior motives politicians deal with -- is a poor mechanism for waging war?
The threshhold for waging war has been declining ever since WWI. Without getting too far into it, are you trying to expedite the process or advocate greater scrutiny or oversight? Since these are opposite ends of the spectrum could you clarify your intent?
2.) How, on a political level, can we improve it?
You've correctly given personal, financial, and political reasons for going to war. The one common trait of your examples is they all remove the process of dialog and transparancy from the process. In short they classify.
3.) Should war be the dominion of private agencies who would, theoretically, have an interest in both saving money and achieving our objectives in a reasonable amount of time?
Julius Caesar would agree with you. As a military populist leader he based his campaign on cutting through the red tape of beauracracy, and waging war with ease - much to the pains of Cicero. The question I have for you Drew is fast tracking war in the best interests of the people?
4.) How can congress -- regardless of which party is in power -- provide oversight on military affairs without compromising the mission?
The short answer they can't because any oversight would impede swift action on the executive - rightly or wrongly. This is precisely why they are excluded from the process. Over 40% of the CIA's budget is black. There is no intervention by congress of any sort. The routine has been to exclude congress and keep them in the dark. The Church amendments somewhat countered this but was voided after congress ceded authourity to the executive to pursue terrorism in all its forms in 2001.

My answer to your question would be to dissolve the CIA and let the many of the black activities be openly discussed with congress. The problem isn't political wrangling, rather an apathetic absence of oversight.