An imperial presidency? Really?

The escalating rhetoric from Andrew Sullivan is starting to resemble the ravings of the empty-headed pundits he rightly despises. He’s now accusing President Obama of callously discarding Congress in a bid to shore up an “imperial presidency.” Really, Sully?

Upon learning from foreign policy expert Steve Clemons that “Congress was not broadly consulted on the decision to intervene in Libya,” Sully exploded: “You don't get a more classic example of an imperial presidency than that. The Congress might as well not exist. And a country goes to war on a dime - even against the wishes and judgment of the secretary of defense.”

That’s kinda overstating things, you know, just a tad. First and foremost, Obama may be many things, but what he is not is Richard Milhous Nixon, the man who wrote the book on presidential imperialism and constitutional subversion. The notion that Obama has similar designs on the office is absurd on its face and deserves no rebuttal.

Second, Congress is never “broadly consulted” when military action is being seriously contemplated, especially while the administration is quietly negotiating with or arm-twisting nervous allies. Moreover, no president can formulate policy with 535 (woefully ill-informed) secretaries of state. This much, at least, should be self-evident. As Clemons himself noted, the congressional leadership was formally briefed Thursday and again today. And I’m certain key members of Congress (McCain, Kerry, etc.) have been privately kept in the loop all along. That’s how Washington works in the real world.

Third, the 1973 War Powers Act requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action. Obama did that. It further forbids him from using military force for more than 60 days without an authorization or a declaration of war from Congress. Obama is well within that time frame. And combat has not yet begun.

Fourth, Sully’s portrayal of the secretary defense as some kind of extra branch of government whose blessing is needed for military action is misguided. The SecDef works for the Commander in Chief and serves at his pleasure. He doesn’t make war policy, he carries it out.

Fifth, Sully needs to re-read his history as it applies to the Pentagon. Remember Operation Torch, the successful invasion of North Africa in World War II that marked the beginning of the end of the Third Reich? As Pulitzer-prize winning historian Rick Atkinson noted in “An Army at Dawn” (p.15-16), the War Department initially wanted no part of it and opposed FDR “adamantly and then bitterly” every step of the way. The generals thought it was a “defeatist sideshow.” FDR, seeing the bigger strategic picture, flatly overruled them and “made the most profound American strategic decision of the European war in direct contravention of his generals and admirals. […] And he had based his fiat on instinct and a political calculation that the time was ripe.” The rest, as they say, is history.

Although it is no small irony that we’re headed back to North Africa, “Operation Libya” is not Operation Torch. But cut Obama some slack. He is at least as cunning as FDR and arguably more intelligent. That does not mean Obama should be immune from criticism. On the contrary, his feet should be held to the fire, especially if Americans are to be placed in harm’s way. But assigning ulterior motives to his constitutional prerogatives is sloppy analysis and, frankly, beyond the pale. To his credit, Sully admits he is reacting emotionally. But that’s still a poor excuse.