Vincenza Falletti observes that the fact of their election doesn’t imply presidents’ decisions are de facto democratic. In fact, some of their most consequential and devastating moves are made under cover of cold bureaucracy:
The atomic bomb entered history not with public justification, but with the quiet efficiency of routine.
Later:
Today, we have inherited sophisticated debates about what makes a war just: whether there is a just cause, such as self-defence, and whether it is pursued with the right intention. What remains unexamined is the power to decide, that is, the right to turn judgment into action. For centuries, the moral burden of ferocity was carried by rulers. But, in a democracy, it ought to be carried by the people.
Faletti’s conclusion is almost banal in its simplicity, yet so obviously lacking in modern decisions regarding war that it also feels radical: knowledge. Or put another way: transparency.
Open-discussion assemblies could be created, spaces where citizens can speak – maybe not to decide but to question those who decide in their name. Their task would be not to command, but to interrupt the machinery of decision-making just long enough for a society – and, with it, democracy itself – to think.
As residents of the United States, we often know almost nothing about the wars being fought in our name.
Shouldn’t we at least have that?
Timothy Pate 
Leave a comment