tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post1497908172475920805..comments2023-11-17T03:55:40.736-05:00Comments on Ink Spots: Strategic assumptions in a non-unitary governmentLilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18373158801523577733noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-1833077917773613392011-08-30T08:31:56.948-04:002011-08-30T08:31:56.948-04:00The lesson I've taken from the Libya campaign ...The lesson I've taken from the Libya campaign and the last 11 years of government is that unless there is an "or what?" the Executive will do whatever it damn well pleases. The President can direct the Pentagon to ignore whatever the executive pleases, as long as the consequences of doing so don't hamper his ability to get reelected or pursue policies more central to his platform.<br /><br />In fact, the Executive can engage in all sorts of lawlessness, and unless there is a consequence (an "or what") nothing will happen. The large examples are, of course, torture and the Libya intervention, but we can conjure smaller others. If the CJCS did not submit a required document to Congress (or compeletely pencil-whipped it), would there be any real consequence? In fact, I think you've questioned whether the CJCS has met his legal responsibilities in submitting some document to Congress (I forget what it was).<br /><br />I think we are experiencing what has to be the zenith of Executive power, so in a normative sense, my answer to your larger question is: Yes, the president can provide direction to his military planners in way he chooses, and he can expect no serious consequence in doing so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com