Power and Constraint — how the JAGs hijacked U.S. anti-terrorism policy

[Valin]

Power Line:

Paul Mirengoff

10/4/12

 

The U.S. response to 9/11 is mostly a success story. But the story has not been without its discouraging aspects. One of the worst was the hijacking of key aspects of American anti-terrorism policy by military lawyers.

 

During the Bush years, we often heard from the left that the war on terror was changing America for the worse by undermining our values and our Constitution. These claims were mostly nonsense. But one portion of our system did take a hit — the concepts of civilian control of the military and the Commander-in-Chief as chief law interpreter for the executive branch. This was the handiwork of the JAGs.

 

We covered this development as best we could on Power Line, mostly by reporting on the work, and the preening, of Lindsey Graham, the JAGs men in Congress. However, until I read Jack Goldsmith’s book Power and Constraint, I didn’t know the half of it.

 

(Snip)

[Valin]

From the Comments Section

 

Eric Newhouse

Agree wholeheartedly with this post. I just retired after 26 years as a Colonel. What amazed me as I rose in rank was how often senior officers referred to the JAG for even the most mundane decisions. I believe it was a combination of legal CYA and a means to relegate decision making to someone else. It's even worse in the AOR where every decision is scrutinized by a legal team for political, media, as well as ROE ramifications. We can afford this as the "only remaining superpower" (as long as that's true) but it certainly has consequences including more casualties, slower decision making process, and more resources dedicated to effect a positive outcome. The fact is, we could never afford to fight this way if we were in a fight for our lives. Imagine any WW2 battle with the level of JAG involvement we have today, it's absurd.