海角大神

奥补笔辞鈥檚听聽found a retired general to pile onto the criticisms against Sen. Tom Cotton鈥檚 open letter:

罢丑别听聽signed by 47 senators and instigated by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) was a stunning breach of protocol. One so outrageous that my former colleagues at the New York Daily News dubbed the signers聽聽While it is indeed a slap in the face of President Obama and an affront to the presidency, I鈥檓 not sure I would go聽that聽far, especially since Cotton is an Army veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. So, I turned to retired聽聽for perspective. He wouldn鈥檛 say Cotton and Co. were 鈥渢raitors,鈥� either. He had a better word.

鈥淚 would use the word mutinous,鈥� said Eaton, whose long career includes training Iraqi forces from 2003 to 2004. He is now a senior adviser to VoteVets.org. 鈥淚 do not believe these senators were trying to sell out America. I do believe they defied the chain of command in what could be construed as an illegal act.鈥� Eaton certainly had stern words for Cotton.

鈥淲hat Senator Cotton did is a gross breach of discipline, and especially as a veteran of the Army, he should know better,鈥� Eaton told me. 鈥淚 have no issue with Senator Cotton, or others, voicing their opinion in opposition to any deal to halt Iran鈥檚 nuclear progress. Speaking out on these issues is clearly part of his job. But to directly engage a foreign entity, in this way, undermining the strategy and work of our diplomats and our Commander in Chief, strains the very discipline and structure that our foreign relations depend on, to succeed.鈥�

Now, I鈥檓 generally a fan of Paul Eaton and agree with him on foreign policy matters more often than I do Tom Cotton. But let鈥檚 not pretend that Eaton is a neutral observer here. He鈥檚 a senior adviser to the Democratic-aligned National Security Network.

Likewise, I鈥檓 more more aligned with Eaton than I am Cotton on the particular matter of our negotiations with Iran over their nuclear program. While I鈥檓 skeptical that we鈥檒l get an ironclad deal with the mullahs that allows the level of intrusive inspections that are required to make an agreement meaningful, I don鈥檛 see a better alternative on the table. And, while I don鈥檛 think Cotton鈥檚 letter will impact the negotiations one way or the other, I agree with Eaton that they鈥檙e unhelpful.

All that said, Eaton is flat out wrong on the matter of Congress鈥檚 proper role, and the notion that the letter is 鈥渕utinous鈥� is simply absurd.

In his capacity as an Army officer, Eaton was subject to a chain of command. The president, in his constitutional role as commander-in-chief, is at the top of that chain. Similarly, during his time聽in the Army, Cotton was subordinate to the president, as was I during my own long-ago stint.

There is an argument to be had that Eaton, as a general officer on the retired list, is still beholden to the chain of command. It鈥檚 a stronger argument for more recently retired officers, who have a powerful sway over former subordinates still in uniform. The argument gets weaker as every year goes by and, since Eaton retired in 2006, it鈥檚 pretty weak, indeed, at this point.

There鈥檚 zero argument that former officers, like Cotton and myself, who merely served a time in uniform and draw no retired pay, are subject to the chain of command. (I鈥檓 an employee of the Defense Department and have some strictures in that regard. But, essentially, my relationship to the chain of command is no different than that any civilian employee聽has with their bosses.)

Moreover, Cotton is a United States senator. He is in that capacity a member of a separate, co-equal branch of government. As a matter of protocol, he鈥檚 expected to address Obama as 鈥淢r. President.鈥� But he鈥檚 not in any way the president鈥檚 subordinate. Nor is he required or even expected to observe any sort of 鈥渄iscipline鈥� with regard to the negotiations in which the president engages.

The distinction Eaton makes between 鈥渧oicing [an] opinion in opposition to any deal鈥� and 鈥渄irectly engag[ing] a foreign entity鈥� is nonexistent. Not only are members of Congress absolutely permitted to engage foreign entities as much as they please, but the 鈥渙pen letter,鈥� like all open letters, was clearly a publicity stunt aimed at the American people, not the leaders of Iran. And, while I happen to disagree with Cotton and his co-signers on the merits here, they鈥檙e absolutely entitled to 鈥渦ndermine鈥� foreign policy strategies with which they disagree.

The president is the commander-in-chief of the US armed forces. He鈥檚 not commander-in-chief of the United States. He鈥檚 not even commander-in-chief of US foreign policy.

James Joyner is editor of the Outside the Beltway blog at http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/.