Iran: Crouching Tiger or Paper Tiger?

The recent National Intelligence Estimate which reported that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 is both heartening and frustrating. The good news, of course, is that if the report is true then Iran is not moving in a nuclear direction; thus, the World War III feared by President Bush is a little bit less of an immanent danger, and the political climate has changed to such an extent that war with Iran is becoming much less likely. The Estimate is also frustrating, though; why is it that out of nowhere intelligence can surface which contradicts years of rhetoric and prior intelligence? In the pursuit of truth, mistakes will be made....that's a fundamental life lesson I've learned as a science student. In intelligence, the consequences of a mistake are so great that I can't help but worry about the overall state of America's ability to gather information on her enemies. It has become clear that the Iraq war was predicated on flawed intelligence. In the case of Iran, we don't know which intelligence assessment of Iran's nuclear weapons capability is really correct yet, but we do know that Iran either does have a post-2003 nuclear weapons program or it does not. I'm more inclined to believe the present assessment reflected in the most recent Estimate more because it is current and presumably based on an total intelligence picture that includes information gathered over many years, but can we really trust intelligence anymore in general? If intelligence is not consistently trustworthy, it can hardly be used as either a basis either for waging war or for making peace.

Although I am adamantly opposed to any war with Iran, I'm still very suspicious of Iran because of its past rhetoric and past actions. Cautious diplomacy is in order, I think...if a peaceful relationship between Iran and the United States can be established, the world will be a much better place, but I'm not too keen on the idea of bargaining with Iran at this point. Let's let the rhetoric cool down on both sides before there's talk of deeper economic cooperation. The time for investment and nuclear power collaboration is yet to come.

The Democratic candidates in the Iowa NPR debate seemed to largely be in favor new policy towards Iran in which diplomacy would be emphasized. While most of the candidates made it clear that they did believe Iran to still be a threat to some extent, they uniformly disagreed with President Bush's position that the National Intelligence Estimate should not change America's attitude towards Iran. Barack Obama was the first to mention Iran's support of Hamas and Hezbollah as an example of the continuing threat Iran still poses, which Hillary Clinton echoed. Mike Gravel was the only candidate to openly declare that he did not consider Iran to be any threat whatsoever; he even made an argument for Iran's right to fund Hamas and Hezbollah, comparing Iran's aid to those organizations to the United States' foreign aid to Israel. I'm glad that Gravel was bold enough to declare Iran as not being a threat; sometimes, I feel like Americans after 9/11 are way too easily frightened of countries and terrorist organizations that do not have anywhere near the resources that the American government has. Gravel isn't scared of Iran, and his contribution to the discussion was to me a reminder that, although Iran can do plenty of harm in the world, it's not as if an Iranian invasion or a nuclear holocaust is very likely to occur in the near future. America can be suspicious of Iran and treat it with caution, but it does not need to be so frightened of Iran that it acts impulsively and irrationally. Unlike Gravel, I do continue to consider Iran a threat, partly because of Iranian support for terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah. There was a good deal of condemnation of President Bush's "rush to war," including some accusations that Bush intended to lead America into war with Iran in a way very similar to how he launched the war against Iraq. I thought Joe Biden was Bush's most eloquent critic in the Iowa NPR debate. He stressed that he was not simply opposed to a "rush to war." Rather, he made it clear that he was "advocating no war, no justification for war." Biden hasn't really established himself as an anti-war candidate in my mind; he does, after all, advocate that American troops in reduced numbers remain in Iraq, and he has a history of supporting intervention in other countries. In this debate regarding Iran, however, he seemed to out-Kucinich Dennis Kucinich!

John Edwards attempted to make a big issue out of Hillary Clinton's vote in support of declaring the Iranian National Guard a terrorist organization. I was a bit surprised when that declaration passed myself, primarily due to terminology...I'm still not used to considering a branch of a nation's military a "terrorist" organization, but considering that armies have surely terrorized many more people throughout history than shadowy organizations like Al-Qaeda have perhaps the designation is more than fair. Edwards' argument that Clinton's vote showed that there was a clear distinction between the Democrats -- that is, between Hillary Clinton and all the other Democratic candidates -- did not really hold water with me. Clinton has said she does not advocate war with Iran. She can still believe that the Iranian National Guard is a terrorist organization...those two viewpoints are not mutually exclusive. Edwards argued that in effect Clinton was giving the president the pretext to go to war, but that argument suggests that in order to inhibit Bush's power it is necessary for Congress to refuse to call a terrorist a terrorist. That's not a very satisfying state of affairs -- surely Bush can still be restrained from going to war without Congress losing its ability to condemn terrorist organizations. It would've required more votes than that cast by Senator Clinton to actually lead America into another war. For Edwards' argument to have been effective, I think the former senator would have needed to argue that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard was being mischaracterized -- that is, it was improperly labeled as a terrorist organization for ulterior motives and thus Clinton's vote was cast either because she is in league with President Bush on Iran or because she was too foolish to see through the subterfuge.

The Democrats Take on Iran, China, and Illegal Immigration

All the Democratic presidential candidates except Bill Richardson gathered in Iowa this afternoon for a radio debate broadcast by National Public Radio. This debate was the first radio debate I can remember ever listening to; I think the all-aural limitation of radio as a medium makes for a somewhat different experience for both listeners and candidates. The atmosphere was certainly much more calm and staid than the last couple of Democratic TV debates I've watched; perhaps the debate format, in which candidates were not given strict time limits for their answers and in which only three major topics were addressed, contributed to this atmosphere as well as the medium. The candidates were no doubt more relaxed because they did not have face a live audience; furthermore, the listening audience for a Tuesday afternoon debate on NPR is probably not that large so perhaps the candidates felt less under the microscope today. Unfortunately, the time distribution in this debate was terrible. It was very much a Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards show, a reflection of the tight three-way race in Iowa at the moment. Thus, even though this was Mike Gravel's big comeback debate, I often found myself wondering if he was even present during long stretches of today's debate.

I noticed that Hillary Clinton did something clever early on in this debate that seemed to set the tone for the afternoon. By quoting previous remarks of Obama and Edwards on Iran, she sought to limit their ability to attack her without being particularly aggressive herself. This tactic seemed to work well; this debate wasn't very contentious at all...frankly, it tended a bit more towards "boring." To an extent, I felt like most of the candidates were handicapped by the topics discussed today. No Democrat is running on an Iran, China, and illegal immigration platform -- those aren't what I would really core issues for the Democratic candidates in 2008, but they were topical given the new intelligence assessment of Iran's nuclear program, the recent Chinese toy recalls, and the ongoing immigration debate. Apart from the eternal contrarian, Mike Gravel, the Democrats seemed to by-and-large agree on these issues: they urged a more conciliatory and diplomatic approach towards Iran, promised to be tougher on China especially on economic issues, and advocated immigration reform without deportation. This was quite a good slate of issues for Joe Biden, however, who loves discussing foreign policy. He sounded sharp today; this was definitely his kind of debate. Each of the other candidates not named Gravel struggled to distinguish his or her candidacy from the rest of the pack while at the same time largely agreeing with his or her rivals in the actual debate. Dennis Kucinich sought to do this by pointing out his consistency: his steadfast opposition to the Iraq war was adduced as evidence for his commitment to avoiding war elsewhere in the Middle East, and he also pointed out his record of continuing opposition to free trade with China. The rest of the candidates, I thought, were largely unsuccessful at distinguishing themselves from their opposition. After listening to the debate, I did feel like Obama had performed better than Clinton or Edwards, but I think that was a pretty subjective judgment made on the fly that I might very well change if I listened to the debate again or read a transcript.

Over the next few days, I plan to tackle each of the three issues the Democrats debated today in a separate blog post. Opinions and conclusions will be compared. Gravel will be mentioned with alarming regularity. Least importantly, I will write more than two blog posts this month.

The Republican YouTube Debate

To an extent, I feel like some of the impressions I get out of any particular presidential debate are pretty random. Sometimes a great performance or an eloquent phrase does get imprinted in my memory by virtue of its quality, but I often can't really explain why it is I pay more or less attention to a particular candidate or a particular topic in a particular debate. It's like trying to explain why the characters in James Joyce's Ulysses suddenly start thinking in Italian or start reciting enormous lists of random things. I felt my impressions of tonight's Republican YouTube debate were particularly scattered and random, so I will forgo any attempt to declare any candidate a debate winner or loser. I'm happy to share a slightly stream-of-consciousness report on tonight's debate, though.

For some reason, the candidate I found myself thinking about the most tonight was Mitt Romney, a person I've barely mentioned in this blog to this point. In particular, it struck me that though Romney is the candidate most attacked for flipflopping he is essentially running as an uncompromising conservative, someone who is a hardliner with a rigid ideology. The attacks on Romney continued tonight; as usual, his changing stances on abortion and gay marriage were challenged, and John McCain chastised the former Massachusetts governor's tentative handling of the issue of waterboarding. While Romney can look uncomfortable at times when answering certain questions, it takes a lot to actually phase the man for more than 10 or 15 seconds; I certainly didn't think any attacks tonight really put a visible cramp in Romney's style though they certainly may have an impact on how voters perceive him. As experienced as Dodd and Biden and McCain and Paul are, it is Romney who out of all the candidates seems to be the most polished, consummate politician to me. He honestly sounds as convincing expressing a pro-life point of view now as he did expressing a pro-choice point of view in a video clip shown during the debate from years ago. He doesn't really sound like a guy who would change his mind on the issue now, but he didn't sound like he was about to change his mind then either! During the course of the debate, Romney adopted rigid, legalistic positions on several issues that admitted the existence of no gray areas. While Mike Huckabee thought a distinction needed to be made between the children of illegal immigrants who had no choice but to follow their parents into this country and those illegal immigrants who consciously crossed the border of their own volition, Romney refused to acknowledge that a child was any less an illegal immigrant than his or her parents. Similarly, Romney seemed to not even consider the morality of detaining terrorists in Guantanamo when he discussed that issue -- he saw no need to justify a practice that was part of the War on Terror even though it is very much a moral issue to some people. Romney often expresses rather than explains and seems to prefer to be perceived as confident rather than as thoughtful. That really has nothing to do with Romney's particular take on the issues and everything to do with how Romney has chosen to conduct the campaign. Tom Tancredo, for instance, is surely the most vocal opponent of illegal immigration that is running for president, but he has thousands of reasons he feels the way he does and he is eager to make his case wherever and whenever he can.

Fred Thompson, meanwhile, is about as rough a politician as Mitt Romney is smooth. He really didn't come as advertised -- in spite of the acting experience, Thompson doesn't deliver smooth, well-rehearsed lines and a steady supply of sound bites. Instead, he rambles and says "uh" a lot. And he has a good sense of humor. He's pretty...human. Is he Reaganesque? Well, he is an actor and is surprisingly pretty down-to-Earth, but that's about it for the Reagan connection. He just hasn't been the dynamo that some people were expecting him to be; if he does end up winning the Republican nomination, I predict he'll win it slowly and steadily without many fireworks. He seems comfortable with attacking politics, so I think Giuliani and Romney will definitely feel Senator Thompson nipping at their heels at least through the early primary season.

It was John McCain's turn to attack Ron Paul tonight. Paul has received a lot of attention because his policies are so unlike the policies of the other candidates, so it seems only natural that the other candidates should challenge him when he expresses views so unlike their own, and at least one candidate invariably does in each debate. Each time these challenges actually happen, though, it seems to always sound like a mean bully is picking on the idealistic underdog; McCain didn't exactly escape this image by essentially accusing Paul of adhering to the same policies that led to World War II. Sometimes I think politicians should always consider what the reaction to their words would be like if they expressed their thoughts directly. McCain's direct argument would probably have gone like this: "You know that fringe anti-war candidate, Ron Paul? His crazy anti-war rhetoric is going to lead us into a world war like what happened when we ignored Hitler! Only a hawk like me can be trusted to keep us out of big wars by making us fight lots of little ones! A vote for Paul is a vote for WORLD WAR!" McCain's argument may have some merit, but he was definitely picking on the little, albeit growing, guy here and the Arizona senator ended up sounding very speculative. Mean and speculative isn't an election-winning combo, I don't think.

That's all I've got for tonight.

Snipers and Thinkers

The Democratic presidential candidates gathered tonight in Las Vegas for another debate with memories of the year's most contentious debate last month in Philadelphia still fresh in many minds. Although Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards have been the media and poll darlings for most of the year, open warfare between the three has erupted only relatively recently. Personally, I've found this trio's squabbles rather grating and tiresome in large part because there seems to be so little that is genuine about any of it. Obama and Edwards are attacking Clinton because she is ahead in the polls; Clinton is counterattacking Obama and Edwards because they threaten to eat into her lead. The genuinely angry man in this race, Mike Gravel, hasn't even been invited to the last couple of Democratic debate; the pale flames of Obama and Edwards' indignation would easily be engulfed by the roaring fire of Gravel's frustrated populism. Much of what we see from Clinton, Obama, and Edwards is strategic sniping. The issue of giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants is a good example of this. Hillary Clinton's reluctance to give a value judgment on this issue garnered public criticism from Obama, yet Obama also seemed rather uncomfortable addressing the very same issue in tonight's debate! True, Obama gave a direct answer -- he supports the idea -- but he seemed as frightened to be seen as taking a strong stand on this issue as Hillary Clinton was. To me, this trivialized the whole controversy over Hillary's previous vacillating; the whole thing was an excuse to attack Hillary, not so much about the issue itself which is clearly a difficult one for both candidates. On the other hand, Bill Richardson was able to answer the question unequivocally and thoroughly. In fact, the early Hillary/Barack/John sniping in this debate probably did more to make Bill Richardson and Joe Biden look good than it did to help any of the disputants. By staying out of the fray and sounding disapproving of the political games taking part on the stage, Biden and Richardson played the roles of wise statesmen. Unluckily for them, the debate grew less negative as it continued on, and each member of the main trio had a few good moments. Hillary Clinton, in particular, seemed much more confident and comfortable even when under fire in this debate, a much-needed performance following her weak showing in Philadelphia.

I thought it was Bill Richardson who sparked the most interesting discussion of the night by suggesting that human rights could be more important than security. That was a brave statement to make in this day and age; there was no one on stage Giuliani enough to ask Bill Richardson if he remembered 9/11, but I suspect that millions of people watching the debate were wondering just that. On a certain level, I do tend to agree more with Chris Dodd and Hillary Clinton on this issue; protecting the country is one of the fundamental roles of government, certainly more fundamental than promoting human rights overseas (the issue of human rights vs security was raised in the context of American foreign policy towards Pakistan). It is a question of circumstance, however...sometimes, human rights should trump security, or else fear will trample the rights of American citizens and encourage the trampling of rights elsewhere also. At any rate, I love to listen to Richardson's optimistic foreign policy outlook; he is certainly not a fearmonger. On the domestic side of things, he does seem to fall into the trap of promising money to fund any and everything; a Richardson administration will eagerly embark on an ambitious renewable energy program, increase salaries for teachers, increase pay and benefits for the military, and win over Pakistan's middle class with economic aid. Idealism and optimism is a healing medicine for a debate watcher grown weary of petty bickering and immovable thinking, but I do wonder if Richardson's idealism would trump pragmatism just like human rights trump security!

Constitution, LEAVE ARNOLD ALONE!

The United States Constitution is explicit about just who is allowed to become a president, a senator, or a representative. The presidency, for instance, can only be held by someone who is 35 years old or older. That's an arbitrary limit, of course -- if a 35 year old can be a good president, then surely a 34 year old could be, too. More important than the number 35 is the implication that someone who is old enough to be a senator or a representative might not be old enough to be president; the presidency is for the experienced. One reason John Cox has failed to get much real recognition from the media (or from this blog, for that matter) as he has pursued the Republican presidential nomination is the fact that he has never held a major political office. He's not taken seriously -- he's not seen as "presidential" -- even though he is old enough to hold the office. Fewer people would so cavalierly dismiss an immigrant candidate for president such as Arnold Schwarzenegger as not being fit for the office, but the Constitution is bold enough to do just that. Article II, Section 1 states: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." There is not much wiggle room here at all: presidents have to at least be 35 and they have to be natural born: no youngsters and no immigrants need apply.

Frankly, there is something discriminatory about the restrictions the Constitution places on who can be president. Simply put, all citizens are not allowed the same freedom to seek the highest public offices because of what the Constitution says. Are these limits on individual liberty reasonable and just or arbitrary and discriminatory? It is particularly hard for me to reconcile the 14th Amendment with the immigrant restriction -- that amendment declares that naturalized citizens ARE citizens of the United States. That is, a natural reading of the 14th Amendment suggests to me that there should be no difference between a naturalized citizen who immigrated to the United States from another country and a citizen who was born in the United States. Yet Article II, Section 1 forces naturalized citizens to be "citizens with an asterisk," like other citizens in most every respect except that they cannot become president. This seems a far cry from true equality under the eyes of the law.

The Constitution is not just a work of philosophy, however. It might seem more in keeping with the central themes of the Constitution to allow anyone to run for president, but there is at least one pragmatic reason why it might not be wise to do so. As I mentioned previously, the age restriction encourages the experienced to seek the presidency; these folks aren't necessarily the best-suited to the job, but at least they have records of public service which can be studied and judged. The immigrant restriction, on the other hand, probably is less a signal to people in the United States as it is to people who are outside it: it makes it more difficult for a foreign government to install a puppet as president. This may sound a little ridiculous, but I can imagine something like that happening (it certainly has historical precedent in other nations), especially if the foreign government finds an effective way of funneling funds into the United States in order to support their candidate. It would be difficult -- perhaps almost impossible -- to fool the American people, the government, and the media all at once, to be sure, but this scenario is still scary to me even if it is improbable. Additionally, it perhaps would have been easier for a foreign government to install a puppet at certain periods of American history than it would be now; that doesn't mean the Constitution is outmoded since it could be that America will again become more vulnerable to this in the future. My point is that the immigration restriction on who can be president probably has much more to do with domestic security than deliberately enshrined discrimination.

Discriminate it does, however. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a popular and dynamic governor, may well never be able to run for president even though he'd likely be a strong candidate; while personal views on the California governor vary wildly, isn't it a little disheartening to think that we would never even get the chance to consider supporting his candidacy without the Constitution being first amended? It's not as if Arnold is the only immigrant in politics, either; many otherwise exceptional candidates are undoubtedly barred by the Constitution from even seeking the presidency. While the Constitution may be saving the United States from being taken over from within by Austria, it is also denying Americans an opportunity to vote for good candidates. In my opinion, it would be better to combat foreign interference in American politics in other ways rather than make naturalized citizens less than natural born citizens.

Larry Craig's Dilemma

I have no doubt that many politicians take their role of "public servant" very seriously, but at the same time I think even the most idealistic public servant must also recognize that politics is a career not so unlike other professions. It's no coincidence that Chris Dodd and Mitt Romney followed in their fathers' footsteps by becaming politicians; were they not merely continuing the family business as many children do? Certainly politics is a strange sort of business in that it has a penchant for attracting diverse members of other professions; the presidential race is a good example of this for though the butcher, baker, and candlestick maker have yet to enter the race, the doctor, the lawyer(s), the businessman, the soldier, and the preacher are just a few of the current candidates who are currently seeking the presidency. On the other hand, Larry Craig is an example of a politician who has spent most of his life in politics -- he is a career politician if there ever was one. His name has become associated with scandal and hypocrisy, but the senator from Idaho is ignoring all calls for his resignation and attempting to hold on to his political career for dear life...perhaps, in part, because he has no other career to fall back on.

All things considered, I consider the act which has led to Senator Craig's fall from grace to be, if Craig did indeed commit it, a rather slight offense, though shameful for a married man that publically espouses "family values." Accused of soliciting sex in a public bathroom, Craig pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct but now maintains his innocence and is attempting to withdraw his guilty plea in what will likely be a protracted legal fight. The sordid details of the case have captivated the media's imagination, but frankly solicitations that are much more direct and public occur in bars, clubs, and on college campuses every day. It would seem unfair to me to end someone's career for a single offense of that nature, but this is another example of how politics can differ from other professions. There seems to be no rule as to whether a politician can survive a scandal, no matter how mild or horrendous the offense; some, like Ted Kennedy, have thrived post-scandal while others, like Dan Crane, have been essentially forced to give up politics altogether. It has been hinted in some media reports that Craig will not seek reelection, so perhaps he won't even give the public a chance to reevaluate his character and worth as a candidate...but he still faces a dilemma regarding his immediate future in politics. Members of the Republican Party have called for Craig to resign in light of the scandal, ostensibly for the good of the party; Craig, however, has stated that he would like to complete his term and clear his name, despite having previously announced that he intended to resign in September.

Should Senator Craig stay or go? I think the answer to the question depends on whether we think of Craig as a public servant or as a man. Craig the public servant is clearly hampered by the scandal -- he has shocked constituents and angered colleagues. Even if he does somehow prove himself innocent, his willingness to plead guilty falsely and to change his mind both on his plea and resignation is not likely to impress anyone. Can he effectively serve under these circumstances? On the other hand, the remainder of Craig's present term could be his last moment in the public spotlight; it is likely the last gasp of a long career. No wonder he wants to do everything he can to heal a reputation and secure a legacy. While it would be nice for Craig to put the public interest ahead of his personal interests, it's doubtful that Craig's decision will have any major impact on the nation. So I can't fault him too much for acting as he has, because he is first and foremost a human being...it's just that politics happens to be his career, and that makes everything difficult!

The Modern Militia

"The Militia" is referred to several times in the United States Constitution, but it is rarely mentioned in modern American political discourse. Nonetheless, the citizen armies of the states do continue to exist; the United States Code deems all members of the National Guard and the Naval Militia to be part of the organized militia and all male citizens or intended male citizens who are at least 17 but not yet 45 years of age to be part of the unorganized militia. Thus, I am a member of the militia myself merely by virtue of my American citizenship, my gender, and my age! As a newly realized militiaman, I thought it would be worthwhile to devote a blog post to the concept and role of the militia in the United States.

The Constitution is quite clear in designating the militia as at least partially at the behest of the federal government. In Article I, Section 8, Congress is given the responsibility "to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" although the states are explicitly given the authority to appoint officers and train the militiamen. At the same time, the Congress also has the authority to raise armies and maintain a naval force. Thus, there is a recognition that state militias alone may not be sufficient to provide for the national defense, but at the same time state militias are not left to look purely after the interests of the individual states. In cases of crisis, state militias have a responsibility to look after the national interests as well. Furthermore, according to Article II, Section 2, the President is Commander in Chief of the militia when they are called into action, just as he is Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. With this being said, what is the proper role of militia versus the proper role of the military? Why do we need both?

I have thought for a long time that the primary purpose of the militia was to combat a federal government that had shown itself to be tyrannical. My current studies have led me away from this conclusion, for it makes no sense that an armed force would fight against its own Commander in Chief. The militia can hardly check the power of the federal government if they themselves are beholden to it. On the other hand, the militia system might have been able to make it more difficult for a military leader to assume tyrannical powers because the militia is not a standing army of professional soldiers who are perpetually on duty. However, the fact that the Constitution explicitly allows for an Army and a Navy in addition to the militia undermines the capability of the militia to prevent the rising up of military tyrants. Ultimately, I think a natural reading of the Constitution suggests that the militia should continue to fulfill the two major roles it continues to fulfill today: to respond quickly to crises within their home states (as, for
instance, when a state's National Guard assists in evacuation and disaster relief) and to supplement the military in a time of national crisis (state militias could very easily be the first line of defense against an unanticipated invasion).

While I don't feel the current existence of both a permanent standing military force and a militia is unconstitutional, this is certainly not the only arrangement that would be possible. There are at least a couple of major disadvantages to maintaining a standing army. As I alluded to earlier, standing armies can give ambitious military leaders the muscle they need to seize power -- this is perhaps not something most Americans are particularly afraid of at this moment, but military dictatorships are still common around the world. Secondly, permanent standing armies make foreign invasions tempting for expansionistic governments, so nations with standing armies are likely to go to war much more often than those without them. There are also disadvantages to relying on the militia alone, however. I think the existence of the militia as well as the absence of a standing federal army would tend to encourage secession and ultimately the creation of many small, weak states. Secondly, I think it is harder to maintain a strong militia than to maintain a strong standing army unless, ultimately, each state ends up having its own permanent standing army of professional soldiers rather than the part-time band of armed citizens the militia has traditionally been. Any weak point in the chain -- a single state that fails to fund and train its militia properly, for instance -- could lead to a national disaster. All in all, the present compromise seems reasonable.

Although it is legal, I wonder if the current deployment of National Guard members in Iraq agrees with the spirit of the Constitution. The militia is a defensive rather than an offensive force, a reactive rather than a proactive army. To take Guardsmen and Guardswomen from the states they protect into a foreign country seems to be a misuse of a militia and damaging to the safety of the states. Some states have State Defense Forces to ensure that there is always a force available to those states even if much of the National Guard is occupied elsewhere, but I'm not sure this should be necessary.