Foreign Policy Accountability

Conor Friedersdorf has a good post about mission creep and Mali. But one section struck me as off:

I don't know what's going to happen in Mali. But I know that the Libya intervention can't be fully evaluated until we find out (and until we see what else happens in Libya itself in coming years). I also know that America's role in Mali is more likely to reflect the will of the people if Congress determines it. Sadly, the legislature isn't yet willing to assert its Constitutional prerogatives, and the political press doesn't see fit to cover the news as if they have an important role. (emphasis mine)

If Congress had to sign off on military action/assistance, its likely that the U.S. would involve itself in fewer wars. I suspect that Conor would prefer this (as would I). However, I don't think this would make America's foreign policy more closely reflect the will  of the people. I also don't think that it would make government officials more accountable.

Congressional approval almost always requires some form of antidemocratic supermajority support. This is good if your goal is to slow legislative action and require greater consensus. Its bad if you want government action to reflect the will of the people. 

Similarly, vesting war-making powers in a single executive produces greater accountability. Despite the general unpopularity of the Iraq War, Congressional supporters of the war--Kerry, Hilary Clinton, Hagel--are still given the chance to serve in important positions of authority in the foreign policy arena. Its hard to imagine George W. Bush being given a similar opportunity. Presidents are the ones who receive the majority of the national security briefings, who oversee the execution of the war, and who ultimately will end up taking the blame when the war goes badly. 

Likewise, Presidents can actually be expected to carry out their foreign policy pronouncements. Candidates can talk all they want about repealing Obamacare or reforming the tax code, but the Madisonian system means that their rhetoric won't end up matching policy outcomes. This is not the same for foreign policy--to the extent that Obama strayed in his first term from his foreign policy declarations, he can, and should, be held accountable. Its much harder to blame him for not providing more stimulus or failing to introduce a carbon tax/cap-and-tade, as he had far less control over these outcomes.