Obviously it’s been a busy week, which would be why I’ve done little more than cut and paste old Dear San Diego entries. I find myself writer, producer, and primary musician sixteen hours a day of late, so please excuse the lack of entries.

A great deal has occurred over the last week, most notably the official apology and compensation package given Maher Arar by the Canadian government and the idiotic comments of US Ambassador David Wilkins, who actually had the audacity to criticize the Canadian government’s attempts to have Arar removed from American security watch lists.

Things in Iraq remain the same, things in Afghanistan remain the same, tensions between Hamas and Fatah have escalated, Lebanon is heading down the road to civil war, US involvement in Somalia remains underreported, as does the newly approved policy authorizing US forces to take whatever action is deemed necessary against suspected Iranian agents in Iraq if they are considered a threat.

Amidst all of these I would like to use the majority of this entry to focus on a recent statement by the new US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates. During his first press conference since assuming office, Gates remarked last Friday…

“It’s pretty clear that a resolution that in effect says that the general going out to take command of the arena shouldn’t have the resources he thinks he needs to be successful certainly emboldens the enemy and our adversaries.�

This was, of course, in response to the suggestion that a Congressional resolution could oppose President Bush’s proposed troop surge, which is ironic considering that troops have already begun to be deployed.

I wanted to draw specific attention to Mr. Gates words for one simple reason, one that has to do with the democratic reality within highly militarized states, such as the United States.

The first article of the Constitution of the United States empowers Congress, not the Presidency, and certainly not the military as commanded by the President. Thus, when the President, Vice President, or Secretary of Defense claim that Congressional resolutions won’t hinder administrational decisions, which all three of have of late, they are, in essence, claiming that the people, by way of their elected representatives, have absolutely no power over use of their own military, which, it should never be forgotten, exists at the behest of the people within any democratic society, not beyond them. Of course, that reality with regards to the United States, is, in and of itself, a subject of some enormity, so I’ll not delve into it here. The basic point though is that key officials have, over the last week, claimed that the power of Congress doesn’t a) matter with regards to the deployment of the military, or b) that ways can be found around Congressional attempts to usurp the authority of the administration with regards to the deployment of the military.

Looking at this, one should immediately be drawn to the democratic rhetoric espoused by this administration with regards to other nations, primarily those in which they are currently militarily engaged. If, in the United States, Congress is so easily disregarded, what sort of message does that send to fledgling democracies, never mind those guerrillas or sectarian groups fighting within them?

The Bush administration’s refusal to acknowledge the power of Congress should not be overlooked, and the damage caused by that position should be carefully weighed with regards to the future of the Presidency itself, no matter who is in office.