Commander-in-Chief

Pat Lang is a prick and he doesn't like me. But he does have some good observations at his Sic Semper Tyrannis 2008 blog. Like in his post of 09/04/08, Tom Brokaw and the emperor:

Tom Brokaw made a reference on MSNBC today to the "commander in chief of the United States."

NO!

The president is commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States, not of the country. We have no emperor. To think of the president of the United States as commander in chief of the country is to make this person the sovereign and we his subjects.

Tom Brokaw has made himself press agent for the veterans of World War Two. Did they struggle for this, Tom, to be "subjects?"

It's a real sign of the militarization of our culture and politics that the President is so routinely referred to as "the Commander-in-Chief". Lang has it exactly right. If you're not on active duty in the armed services, he's not your Commander-in-Chief under the Consitution.

Tags: pat lang, unilateral executive, unitary executive, us constitution

Dick Cheney, short version

Are you ready for four (or eight) more years of Dick Cheney government?

Pat Lang doesn't really like my quoting him. But he manages to say some things that are spot-on. Like the following, from The Vice President does not care what we think Sic Semper Tyrannis 2008 blog 03/22/08:

I am still perplexed by the existence of Dick Cheney. This is a man who has evidently believed for a long time that the Framers of the US Constitution somehow got it wrong but who has still managed to rise to the second highest executive branch office in the country. How did that happen? As I have written before, Cheney does not like our present form of government.

Tags: cheney, pat lang

Evaluating "The Surge", aka, the McCain escalation

Pat Lang doesn't think much of what The Surge has accomplished in The "Surge" and its results Sic Semper Tyrannis 2008 blog:

Yes, more troops made possible a more complete application of Petraeus' revival of counter-insurgency methods and that was a plus, but that does not mean that the increased number of troops would have produced a similar result without the basic change in strategy.

In addition, the Sunni Revolt against the takfiri jihadis lies at the very heart of what has changed in Iraq. That revolt reached the point of "critical mass" at a time in which many people succeeded in convincing the American command in Iraq that predestination might be a feature of religious thought for many Americans but the idea of redemption as a possibility for insurgents would probably be a better operational approach. This serendipity (revolt plus counter-insurgency methods) made the difference this year in Iraq, not more infantry. Once again, the additional infantry were useful, but only that.

It is reasonably said by some that none of this matters because the underlying social and political causes of the internal problem in Iraq have not been solved. That is true, but I haven't given up on the possibility yet.

He also links to this article, Bush: Iraq force reduction is on track by James Gerstenzang Los Angeles Times 01/13/08. Our Dear Leader continues to hide his own decisions behind Savior-General David Petraeus:

Administration officials have spoken for several weeks about their goal of reducing troop levels by five brigades by July, from a high of 20. That would bring the number of U.S. troops in Iraq below 140,000, from the 158,000 in the country at the end of December. There were about 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq a year ago when Bush announced he was sending more.

Bush told reporters that, about the reductions, he had told Petraeus, "If you want to slow her down, fine; it's up to you."

Tags: iraq war, pat lang, surge