Fair enough. But you might consider using lower case to indicate the general rather than the specific.

The more relevant case, I would submit, is Hitler. But that would be counterproductive. And it’s been done.

Yes, Caesar had at least one of his vanquished enemies ritually strangled in public, but that was entirely normal in the context of a victorious Roman general’s triumph. Entirely pragmatic, Caesar adjusted his military tactics and treatment of prisoners to fit the occasion and was widely known for his clemency.

Caesar was not the first Roman dictator and his rise to power was in most respects very different from W’s. Comparing the two makes little sense in the context of your essay.

The “unitary executive” is a new concept of the neo-cons and Cheneyites that in effect puts gives to all the components of the Executive Department the same privileges of the President. For example, a secret service agent or Army colonel, being part of a ‘unitary executive’ can claim executive privilege if called to explain his or her actions before Congress.

Under the ‘unitary executive’ doctrine the President is above the law. Bush is the first president ever to claim the laws do not apply to him as witnessed by his many signing statements to that effect. If he is above the law, so also are the members of the ‘unitary executive’ who cannot be prosecuted for their acts in the same manner that the president cannot be prosecuted.

I suggest that that unless this doctrine is repudiated by Congress then if not Bush, then some other president, with these powers may turn the presidency into a dictatorship. Couple these powers with the increasing powers of corporate America and you have situations similar to Italy and Germany in the 1920s.

Is this hyperbole? I think not. Who would ever think that the US would undermine the doctrine of habeas corpus or advocate secret prisons, extra-territorial renditions, and torture.

How does all this come together? You have to go back to pre-WWII and see the slow development in our military might since that time. WWII rightly justified the creation of a draft and the massive build up of our armed forces. The Cold War allowed us to continue this culminating in our venture in Vietnam. The Vietnam War was lost because the country turned against it. (If we let the Executive have its will, we would probably still be there.)

The country was motivated to turn against it for two reasons: first, the draft affected almost every family in America so the war was felt by all; and, there was a strong movement of moneyed left wing pacifists, the descendents of the pre-WWII Communist families, in academia who knew how to effectively lead the fight against that war by riling up the students.

In order to insure that not happen again and that future wars would be fought willy-nilly at the whim of the president, the leaders of our country took away one of the two prongs by doing away with the draft and starting a standing volunteer army. Like in the eighteenth and nineteenth century when mercenary troops were used, a country could then war without affecting the general population. This new army is more and more alienated from the general population because it is peopled with less than 1% of the population mainly from the inner cities and rural areas along with the professional officer class. (Presidents Washington and Jefferson would be appalled at us having a standing army since they knew it would lead to stupid wars. If you have a large army, there is a need to use it. As they say, use it or lose it.)
However, the other prong remained. But during this war many in the Peace Movement were startled to find their fellow travelers become strangely silent if not actually pro-war. The left wing professors have fallen silent. The moneyed activists have locked their pocket books. For this war, the anti-war people have taken a walk and probably will never be able to regroup again.

This leaves no effective force or money to fight against the war in Iraq, or for that matter, any war that may come about. With no opposition other than the so-called ‘public opinion’ the president has a free hand. Add to that the calls for an increase in our armed forces; the vast sums being funneled into homeland security against a specter enemy, the diminution of our rights, and a president not bound by any laws then you have a new type of aggressive America. With Bush, hopefully it will not get any worse than what we now see. But it is with a new president with these powers that we will have to contend one day and we will probably be reduced to the claiming as our only virtue the idea that the ‘trains run on schedule.’

I agree with you that we need to have some kind of spelled-out restrictions on how the Guard can be used. National Guard have been used in foreign wars, like World War II, and I’m not sure I’d eliminate sending the to foreign war entirely. I might stipulate that if a war is not declared there must be strict time limits on how long a unit can be deployed, or how many tours of duty any one individual can do.