Why Couldn’t the Pentagon Stop Hillary’s War on Libya?

Justin Raimondo has another of his fine articles out, this one taking off from a series of articles in the Washington Times. See here, here, and here.

These revelations about Hillary Clinton and Libya were in the cards months ago, as in this article that makes the point that libertarians are in a unique position to criticize Hillary’s sponsorship on the Libyan war. Now we have more detail about her role as instigator. She and Obama own American participation and instigation in this war and its results. Her position on Iran makes her a very dangerous candidate for the presidency.

But we need to probe deeper than one or a few persons and ask how these things can happen. To stop this from happening, we need to know the necessary conditions that support it and without which such a war cannot go forward and be prosecuted. That is why we have to ask why the Pentagon was unable to stop Hillary’s War. So, here are some necessary conditions.

First, the Executive branch of government can only make such a war if it has the power. It has that power. Congress has ceded it, and the Executive claims it by virtue of being Commander-in-Chief. The Executive commands the military. Second, Congress has to provide funds, and it has been doing this reflexively for a long time. The government can create unlimited funds both by issuing debt and by money printing. These are linked. This control over financing is a necessary condition. This necessary condition is fulfilled. Third, the people of the country have to support the war, even if only passively. This necessary condition is easily fulfilled for a host of reasons. People individually lack power or stake in a war, and combining to stop one is too costly given the low return to each person. Voting as a method of control faces the same problems. The media too has monetary incentives to kowtow to the government. Its incentives are not perfectly aligned with government, however. Dissent and revelations do come through and being in revenue, but the main current is acceptance of government rationales. Fourth, the Executive has to have the bureaucratic power to control or manipulate intelligence and communications. This it also has. These four conditions are built into America’s federal government. If one or more of these conditions is weakened or eliminated, then the war-making capacity of the federal government will be diminished. For example, if the government can no longer issue debt or print money, its capacity to make war is weakened. It then has to rely on taxation, which pains the public.

A fifth necessary condition is the selling of any war. The attacks on Libya were authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 1973. Under the Bush Doctrine, this is not a necessary condition for the US to commit aggression. Furthermore, sharp lawyers can always put together briefs that concoct high-sounding justifications. What’s necessary to launch such a war is some sort of authoritative cover story. There have to be rationales and justifications. As current politics stand, the US manages to extract enough votes in the Security Council to give the green light to some of its wars. This would change if Russia or China would use the veto, but their political interest has precluded this. Nevertheless, if this power to make war were removed from the UN Security Council, it would at least weaken the ability of the US to sell its wars to the public.

The US Constitution is responsible for the most important necessary conditions, those that relate to Executive power, to debt, and for the whole system of voting as a method of control, which clearly doesn’t work to prevent wars. Section 4 of the 14th amendment supports public debt. It says “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” The Supreme Court in its legal tender decisions has embedded fiat money as an institution.

Attacking, changing and eliminating any one of the necessary conditions is very difficult, because they’re embedded constitutionally and by treaty in the case of the UN.

It seems that this dire situation, which is so antagonistic to principles of freedom, moral rightness and libertarianism, will continue until the Empire runs its course, dissolving and losing its power through ruining its economic base and/or through provoking attacks by the enemies it creates that sap its strength and will.

It is possible that a reaction against war, debt and worsening economic conditions will produce a reprieve via a changed political situation with peace candidates. This won’t change the fact that the Constitution supports the system and its war-making potential. This is the fundamental reason why the federal government should be dissolved, the Union ended and the Constitution brought to an end.

The Best of Michael S. Rozeff