No, "tactical surprise" is not a good reason to ignore the Constitution, Congress, or the American people before starting a war (ANY war, not just the one we're in now)

Hawks toss out this argument all the time and no one ever pushes back. It's nonsense. Here's why.

The Constitution matters more than having the chance to attack first.

Since the Trump Administration struck Iran two weeks ago, its backers have explained its unwillingness to consult or ask approval from Congress beforehand by suggesting doing so would have cost the United States tactical advantage.

This is the worst of reasons for not properly debating the war.

Here’s why.

—

(The whys, the hows, and even the whos. For pennies a day!)

And if you’d rather just make a one-time donation, that’s now an option too

—

Put aside (for now) the question of whether the Iran war is unconstitutional — that is, if President Trump or any president has the right to launch a major preemptive attack against an enemy that does not pose an immediate threat.

The constitution reserves to Congress the power to declare war. It is also true that since World War 2, presidents of both parties have routinely sent American soldiers into harm’s way without Congressional approval.

Put aside the question if Congress would have approved an authorization of force against Iran. I think the answer is yes, even if the war is unpopular. Republicans in Congress (and some Democrats) would not have denied the President the leverage he said he needed to keep Iran from gaining nuclear weapons.

Finally, put aside the current posture of the current war (which unfortunately looks less promising than it did two weeks ago).

—

For the question is not whether this war will succeed.

The question is whether military necessary generally supersedes Congress’s Constitutionally mandated oversight role and power to declare war?

In other words, does the executive branch have good reason to hide broad war plans from Congress? Broad war plans include: a war’s overall goals, an outline of weapons and forces the military expects to use, and the length of time a war might last.

All of those questions are obviously integral to war planning. The Pentagon and White House have, or should have, the answers before the first strike is launched.

But do Congress — and Americans — have the right to know them?

War hawks say no.

They offer two arguments.

First, that antiwar lawmakers might leak specific plans they’ve been given in secret and put American soldiers at risk.

This is risible nonsense and should be called out. Any member of Congress who publicly disclosed specific individual missions would face immediate scorn or worse. Claiming they would is tantamount to calling them unpatriotic, if not outright traitorous.

In fact, only one person in Washington is known to have leaked operational details in recent memory: our current Secretary of War.

—

Second, that a public debate gives the enemy extra time to build its defense and that even knowing broad outlines of a plan of attack help it.

This argument ignores the fact that the United States military has profound tactical advantages. America needed months to build supply chains and bases for both the first and the second Iraq wars, and Saddam Hussein was well aware of the threat he faced. No matter.

Once the wars began, the United States demolished Iraq’s armies while suffering only minimal losses. In the second Iraq war, American forces reached Baghdad in weeks.

Unfortunately, toppling Hussein turned not to be the end of the war in Iraq but its start.

—

(Sad-dam!)

—

The chaos that followed our early success in Iraq proves, yet again, that the American problem with war isn’t the skill or excellence of our military forces.

It’s that too often our political leaders fall into the trap of relying on the excellence of those forces to solve problems that may not have military answers.

They are not alone in this error, of course.

Finding cases in which one side has achieved complete tactical surprise in an initial attack is rare. But four in the last century come to mind immediately:

The Oct. 7 Hamas attacks. The Sept. 11 al Qaeda attacks. Pearl Harbor. And the Nazi blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union.

You don’t have to be a military historian to recognize what all four of those have in common. They were completely successful as initial attacks. And they ended in the destruction of the forces that carried them out and the leaders who had ordered them.

This record probably isn’t a coincidence. If pure tactical surprise is the only way you can win a war, you probably shouldn’t be fighting it.

The truth is that no matter how brilliant the planners are, tactical surprise cannot last long after the first shot is fired. Soon enough, the enemy will get a vote.

Obviously, the situation in Iran is very different. The American military is at no risk of losing in Iran. But that doesn’t mean the war is going well. As one expert on Iran put it to the Washington Post today:

“We’ve had immense success in achieving specific military objectives, but as long as Iran can dictate the end date for the war and still retain a pathway to nuclear weapons capability, it’s a strategic catastrophe.”

(Note that she didn’t even mention regime change. That goal apparently is off the table completely.)

—

(Subscribe if you liked this. Or if you didn’t.)

—

No, the war is not over, and the United States may still find a way to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, neuter Iran, and forcibly remove its uranium stockpiles.

But I hope we will ALL remember this lesson the next time a President (of either party) insists that giving Congress the right to do its job will put the military at risk.

Forcing our Pentagon planners — and the White House — to define the aims and risks of a war before we commit should be absolute minimum we as Americans expect.