Via Instapundit, Donald Sensing wonders if our military is duty bound to refuse orders to attack Syria if Congress--after being asked by President Obama for authorization to strike Syria--refuses to grant that authority by not passing an authorization to use force resolution?
That's an excellent question.
When I took my oath of military service, I vowed I'd uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and obey the lawful orders of those legally placed above me (just about everyone) in the chain of command. While the oath itself does not specify lawful orders or specify the legal position of those giving orders, it was clearly explained in class that this was the case. Otherwise, "just following orders" would be a good defense for any war crime or any act of rebellion under an officer above a soldier in the chain of command who is rebelling against the government
The dilemma posed by Sensing puts the military officer corps in a very bad position. Refuse orders and they are racists who never liked the idea of an African-American president. That's ridiculous given the pioneering job the military has done in integration and its flawless record in accepting orders from the president. But the charge will be leveled by some on the left.
And by refusing orders to attack (possibly resigning rather than complying) they'd create joys in our enemies who'd see a civilian-military split that could cripple our ability to fight for years or decades.
The crisis would be way worse than President Truman firing General MacArthur since that represented the assertion of civilian rule over an officer unwilling to accept lawful orders from the president, rather than the top of the chain of command issuing illegal orders and expecting them to be obeyed.
Or the military can obey orders and quite likely (I'm no JAG authority, here) violate their oath of service.
All because President Obama is insisting (according to some aides) that even if he loses the vote in Congress the president may order strikes.
This too is the worst of both worlds. There's a reason for the saying, "it is easier to get forgiveness than permission." If President Obama is determined to strike, he should have done so, arguing his role as commander-in-chief.
If over quickly and successful, Congress will do nothing. And if it fails, Congress would likely still do nothing substantive since it would be over. Remember, Congress never used the power of the purse to cut off funding for Libya despite a lack of Congressional authorization for the war and presidential defiance of the War Powers Act. While it dragged on for months, it was painless (no US casualties) and successful in the end militarily.
Having asked Congress for permission to attack Syria, President Obama erases the ambiguity in our Constitution about Congressional power to declare war and fund war on the one hand, and the president's power as commander-in-chief of the military. Past presidential actions that operated in that gray area exploited the fact that Congress would not complain about a success or even a quick failure.
Erasing that gray area with basically another clear red line between Congressional and presidential powers raises the stakes beyond gassed kids and regional peace in the Middle East. Failure to follow whatever guidance Congress provides risks a real constitutional crisis, unless another unread provision of Obamacare allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to declare war on states that threaten the financial basis of the Affordable Care Act (if Syrian refugees suffering from gas effects reach our shores we'd have to pay for their care?).
It is possible that the president is simply looking for a Congressional excuse to avoid action he never wanted to take. If so, that may be the least-bad outcome of this whole bumbling affair. After 5 years in office, nobody can claim these ladies and gentlemen in charge of our foreign policy are new and only need experience to run circles around our enemies and charm our friends. Face it--they suck at foreign policy and couldn't pour water our of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel in English and French.
Yeah, I really miss Bush. Constitution shredder, indeed. Only Nixon can go to China? I guess only a "professor" of constitutional law can really shred the constitution.
UPDATE: Syria is already mocking us:
Syria hailed an "historic American retreat" on Sunday, mockingly accusing President Barack Obama of hesitation and confusion after he delayed a military strike to consult Congress.
But mockery might be the best-case scenario the way the president has set this up.
