Checks on Power

 

               “No sir, I will not do that. It is both immoral and illegal.” The words hung there in the air as everyone in the room shifted uncomfortably in their seats. I was in the Al-Faw palace, in Baghdad, Iraq. I was speaking to a division chief of staff, a full colonel. I was a lieutenant colonel at the time. A full colonel, the chief of staff of one of our divisions had come up to our headquarters and presented me with a plan, seeking support from his higher headquarters.

               I continued, “Sir, I know that I do not have the authority to say no; however, I do not believe our commander will support this proposal for the reasons I have stated. If you want, bring it up to him. But, I will not support this.”

               “Well, you will be hearing from my commander,” he replied, menacingly.

               “I’m certain, sir.” And sure enough, a few days later, I was standing at attention in front of a two-star general.

               Again, “No sir, I will not do that. It is both immoral and illegal.” The conversation ran pretty much the same way. And the general left the conference room with the promise of taking this up with my commander, a three-star general.

               A few days later the three-star general stopped me in the hall, saying, “I spoke with the division commander, and he was not pleased with your response to a request for support. Please come by my office and lay out the issue for me.”

               “Yessir,” I will come by tomorrow.”

               “Better make it this evening.”

               “Yessir,” I gulped, knowing that I had only a few minutes to both inform my immediate supervisor and prepare for a meeting with the three-star commander.

               The meeting went well. I laid out the request and my reasons for not wanting to support it. My immediate supervisor was with me. The general considered for a few moments, asked a handful of thoughtful questions, and then leaned back in his chair.

               “I understand your concerns Matt. I will deal with this. Thank you for your briefing,” he said, smiling. I was stunned. He used my first name! I could not imagine that a three-star general would know and use my first name (His chief of staff had done the legwork of getting my name. I was not that important). He was true to his word. He dealt with it. I never heard about this issue again. As he was an excellent commander, he had a private conversation with his subordinate commander, one which I was not privy to. Even today, I would love to have been a fly on that wall. When we imbue leaders with great power; we also need to provide them with checks on that power.

               Even as a lowly lieutenant colonel, I enjoy significant power and authority. The words that I penned in Iraq, moved units and sent soldiers into battle, into harms way. More than once, I developed plans that moved aircraft around the globe in support of operations. There were systems in place to ensure that I did not overstep my bounds. In fact, once when I bypassed those systems to save time, I ended up standing at attention in front of a general officer to explain myself. The conversation was largely one-way and the gist was that if I ever did that again, I would find myself of lessor rank and on the first jet smoking back to the world…military speak for the United States. Fortunately, what I had done worked and was not immoral or illegal; but, the point was that I had subverted the check on my authority. Those checks are critical to the proper functioning of a civilized society.

               Currently, our court system is considering whether or not a sitting president can be held accountable to the law. This is truly not a partisan issue, and to frame it as such obfuscates this grave issue. Every president since George Washington has chafed at the legal restrictions placed upon them. Restrictions, I might add, which serve as an antidote to the corrosive effects of power on the human heart. As one who has wielded power, albeit very limited power, I recognize and support these restraints. In the military world, as much as I found the Inspector General and Congressional Letter of Inquiry system bothersome, it was good and proper that they existed. A president, their staff, and particularly the military, needs such guardrails.

               To exempt a president from legal checks, would untether them from moral and legal limits and responsibility when they need it the most. The pressures and demands of high office weigh heavily on those who occupy the big chair. Without restraint, those who wield such power often rationalize very questionable actions and apply unacceptable pressure on their subordinates to circumvent morality and legality. In my own experience, the pressure from superior officers was intense and on the surface, their case was compelling. Fortunately for me, my commander supported me, and I did not lose my career, not that I had much time left. No matter the issue, the pressure of high office weigh heavily on the holder and how we support them matters, especially if we want to enjoy the benefits of civilization.

               One need only look at history to see what happens when we do not hold leaders accountable for their actions. Hitler, Nero, Pol-Pot, and Stalin teach us the results of leaders without legal or moral restraints. Each of those listed, and there are many more, not only committed grievously immoral and illegal acts, but they also drug many others into the darkness they constructed in the name of the state. A significant component of any civilized society is a respect for the law and the legal system that supports it. Those who enjoy the privilege of wielding the power of the state should also operate within its legal constraints. We loosen those constraints at our peril.

               Some would argue that a president enjoys exemption from the law. They would say that the weighty matters of state transcend its legal constraints and moral strictures. I would say that those tasked with operating the levers of government, doing the business of the state, must do so within the confines of the law. With no constraints, powerful men and women often lose their way in the legal jungle which is modern government. The restraints protect us and them as well. It does not benefit anyone for a leader to go down a morally ambiguous path. The relics of failed countries and societies that followed a popular leader down a flawed path litter the gardens of history. Not only do we need leaders of strong moral fiber, we also need to support them with clear legal guidance and restraints on unlimited use of power.