I'm not sure if you are making this comment seriously, or intending it as hyperbole.
If you are serious, it's important to note that at the time of its founding, US law forbade the creation of a national military, precisely because of the fear of too much centralized control of lethal force.
In the centuries since, we've seen that this fear was very well founded. The founders did not want to prevent the US from having a strong military, but they wanted the rallying and dispatch of it to require significantly more consensus than even a super-majority vote from congress.
Imagine if the Iraq war had required even a super-majority vote... millions of lives would not have been lost. Imagine if the Vietnam war had required a super-majority vote how many more people would be alive today.
Knee-jerk use of power is arguably as American as a six shooter drawn quickly from the holster at the slightest provocation. Many associate this sort of hot-tempered use of force with power and machismo.
But is it really an indication of strength to rob the people of trillions of dollars for a folly in Iraq without true democratic approval? I'd argue that it's a sign of weakness and of failed checks and balances.
If you are serious, it's important to note that at the time of its founding, US law forbade the creation of a national military, precisely because of the fear of too much centralized control of lethal force.
In the centuries since, we've seen that this fear was very well founded. The founders did not want to prevent the US from having a strong military, but they wanted the rallying and dispatch of it to require significantly more consensus than even a super-majority vote from congress.
Imagine if the Iraq war had required even a super-majority vote... millions of lives would not have been lost. Imagine if the Vietnam war had required a super-majority vote how many more people would be alive today.
Knee-jerk use of power is arguably as American as a six shooter drawn quickly from the holster at the slightest provocation. Many associate this sort of hot-tempered use of force with power and machismo.
But is it really an indication of strength to rob the people of trillions of dollars for a folly in Iraq without true democratic approval? I'd argue that it's a sign of weakness and of failed checks and balances.