Nov 9, 2004
Frum on war
In today's Wall Street Journal, David Frum has a curious op-ed.
First I offer here a letter that I just sent to the WSJ in response.
9 November 2004
Editor, The Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty St.
New York, NY 10281
To the Editor:
David Frum criticizes Americans who criticize the war in Iraq, and seeks bipartisanship as a means of quelling this internal criticism (“A New Style Mandate,” November 9th). He opens his case by asserting that “As commander in chief, the president bears the responsibility for waging and winning the nation's wars.” Not quite right.
The Constitution reserves “the power…to provide for the common Defense” to Congress. Also reserved to Congress is the power to declare war, and to raise and support an army and navy. And while it’s true that the President is Commander in Chief, the large role given by the framers to Congress, along with freedom of speech and of the press, is surely meant to encourage open debate over the awesome responsibility of waging war – and even to encourage open and vigorous dissent whenever the reasons for war are dubious.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
.....
Frum presumes that much (most?) of the objection to the war in Iraq is due to a lack of sufficient bipartisanship. If only the administration would talk openly to more people, and if only more people would listen in good faith to the administration, the bulk of dissent over the war would (in Frum's view) disappear. In short, the problem, as Frum sees it, isn't with the war itself -- he presumes it to be noble, justified, worthwhile, etc. -- but with petty partisan postering and failures to communicate.
But the most bizarre item in Frum's op-ed appears when he blames those who object to the war for the Bush administrtaion's missteps in prosecuting it. Here's Frum:
"In every war, there will be mistakes, often very grave ones. It's essential to acknowledge mistakes and learn from them. But in this war, the Bush administration knew that any attemp to identify and fix errors would be savagely exploited by domestic opponents. Burdened by that knowledge, the administration has often succumbed to denial and intransigence when learning and improvement were most called for."
Oh, now I see why the Bush administration is to be trusted to wage war!
First I offer here a letter that I just sent to the WSJ in response.
9 November 2004
Editor, The Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty St.
New York, NY 10281
To the Editor:
David Frum criticizes Americans who criticize the war in Iraq, and seeks bipartisanship as a means of quelling this internal criticism (“A New Style Mandate,” November 9th). He opens his case by asserting that “As commander in chief, the president bears the responsibility for waging and winning the nation's wars.” Not quite right.
The Constitution reserves “the power…to provide for the common Defense” to Congress. Also reserved to Congress is the power to declare war, and to raise and support an army and navy. And while it’s true that the President is Commander in Chief, the large role given by the framers to Congress, along with freedom of speech and of the press, is surely meant to encourage open debate over the awesome responsibility of waging war – and even to encourage open and vigorous dissent whenever the reasons for war are dubious.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
.....
Frum presumes that much (most?) of the objection to the war in Iraq is due to a lack of sufficient bipartisanship. If only the administration would talk openly to more people, and if only more people would listen in good faith to the administration, the bulk of dissent over the war would (in Frum's view) disappear. In short, the problem, as Frum sees it, isn't with the war itself -- he presumes it to be noble, justified, worthwhile, etc. -- but with petty partisan postering and failures to communicate.
But the most bizarre item in Frum's op-ed appears when he blames those who object to the war for the Bush administrtaion's missteps in prosecuting it. Here's Frum:
"In every war, there will be mistakes, often very grave ones. It's essential to acknowledge mistakes and learn from them. But in this war, the Bush administration knew that any attemp to identify and fix errors would be savagely exploited by domestic opponents. Burdened by that knowledge, the administration has often succumbed to denial and intransigence when learning and improvement were most called for."
Oh, now I see why the Bush administration is to be trusted to wage war!