I guess I should backtrack first before I get going. I think the CBU ban is a horrible idea. I'm especially disappointed in the UK, Canada, and Japan. I'm also concerned about other states, such as Italy, being member parties because US aircraft are based there and might be prohibited from storing CBUs at those bases. For the most part, the states that signed up fall into two categories: those who are likely to have their ground forces attacked by CBUs, or those who have no use for them anyways (either because they are unlikely to find themselves in a conflict or would be getting their air support flown by the US anyways). In other words, the treaty was in their interest or the effect on their military readiness was negligible.
On the other hand, states not signing up tended to be those who shared a border with potentially hostile states (ROK, DPRK, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan) or who were likely to use airpower to project power into an adversary's territory (US, China, Russia). Realpolitic at its finest.
So obviously, this ban is not for us. CBUs are an essential part of our warfighting doctrine, and have found use in Vietnam, Praying Mantis, Desert Storm, the Balkan conflicts, and the current war on terror. Giving them up with be an enormous sacrifice, and with our troops currently in harms way in two states, the sacrifice would quickly translate from a loss of efficiency to a loss of lives. So it shouldn't come as any surprise that when this issue was brought up in the Senate, it was soundly defeated by something like 70 to 30--only Alan Keyes could do worse.
But here's the rub: Barack Obama was one of those 30.
Forget Rev. Wright, if there was any reason not to vote for this guy, this is it. That's pretty much proof positive that he either doesn't know dick about being commander in chief, or he's too idealistic to care. But somehow I doubt this sort of thing is sexy enough for the media, so it won't be a major issue. And he probably will be able to beat McCain. So what happens if he gets into office and actually issues an executive order removing CBUs from service?
He'd be sacrificing an extremely valuable combat capability, and the lives that capability saves, for what? Warm fuzzies? It would be selling out our soldiers and our national interest, and that's tantamount to treason in my mind. If that were to happen, I'd probably join up with the conspiracy theorists in calling for his impeachment.
Now, I have no doubt that such an order is a cause for removal from office, both as a matter of democratic principle (think of it as a recall, people wouldn't have voted for him if they thought he would do that so they get rid of him before he can do more damage) and as a matter of justice (even if its just tantamount to treason, it's still a high crime or misdemeanor). The problem is the precedent it sets. We already have to deal with all sorts of petty impeachment demands. And for all it's stupidity, the CBU ban is at its core an arms-control agreement, not much different than the nuclear deals which most could agree are probably good deals to make. Would any such deal potentially cost a CinC his/her job? Well I sure hope not. But it seems to me that the key difference is national interest. A good deal is in our national interest. A treasonous one is in our enemies' interests.
If courts were inclined to decide such questions they could probably handle it. Of course, this isn't a question for them, but for Congress, which clearly has its head way up its ass on questions of impeachment. Take the House during the Clinton fiasco. They were the prosecutors. They had to decide whether to press charges over a rather minor transgression. IMO, they chose poorly. Then take the Senate, which was supposed to be the jury. The factual questions at issue wasn't difficult at all. Did he perjure himself? Yes. Is it a high crime or misdemeanor? Perjury is a felony, so yes. Guilty. Confusing their role with that of the House, they got that wrong too. The the moral of the story is that the process is entirely political and even the political decisions (such as the call to impeach Clinton) suck. So at the end of the day, I really don't trust Congress to handle the issue properly if it ever came to them. Or any impeachment for that matter.
Maybe a better system would be to let a real jury handle impeachment trials. Although I guess the tendency for ordinary people to vote to convict just to feel powerful might be overwhelming... But hey, maybe a recall referendum wouldn't be such a bad idea. Make it take a supermajority to prevent it from undermining the stability of the system. Such a system probably would have led to Bush's removal, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. You'd still have to choose a replacement, and I doubt a replacement that could be agreed upon wouldn't choose to cut and run in Iraq and really screw us. He/she probably would have just knocked off all the illegal shit like extraordinary renditions and extrajudicial wiretappings, etc. Eh, Probably wishful thinking, though. We are, as a whole, pretty damn stupid....
No comments:
Post a Comment