Which is worse: bad leadership or no leadership? That’s a question for a Congress that remains AWOL while young Americans continue to be placed in harm’s way in military missions increasingly divorced from American national interests. Like developments in Afghanistan and Iraq that cry out for a public examination of what U.S. forces are doing overseas, President Obama’s incoherent war in Libya brings increasing urgency to the question.
To recap, the president unilaterally ordered air strikes in Libya despite the fact that Moammar Qaddafi’s regime had neither attacked nor threatened the United States and that the regime was considered a valuable American ally in the war on terror by the Obama administration, just as it had been by the Bush administration. Indeed, the Bush State Department had opened the foreign-aid spigot to Qaddafi, and settled past terrorism claims against him, after the dictator forswore the pursuit of nuclear weapons and shared intelligence on al-Qaeda supporters in his country. Those supporters largely hail from eastern Libya, which — surprise! — is now the stronghold of an opposition affectionately called “the rebels” by pro-interventionists. That opposition is better understood as the Libyan mujahideen — Libya having sent more jihadists to fight against American forces in Iraq than any other country proportional to its population.
Advertisement
If you’re not dizzy enough yet, President Obama started out even more enthusiastic about Qaddafi (an Obama admirer) than was his predecessor. Foreign aid, including military aid to the brutal regime, was increased. Moreover, when violent unrest broke out, Obama gave Qaddafi the same kid-gloves treatment he extended to anti-American dictators repressing their opponents in Iran and Syria.
Soon, though, Obama convinced himself that Qaddafi was about to fall. This misimpression was compounded by European pressure (driven by the continent’s dependency on Libyan oil reserves) and by what Victor Davis Hanson sagely diagnosed as a desire to avoid being seen as once again trailing rather than leading events, as in the case of Egypt. All this together induced a lethal flip-turn, and the president announced that it was time for Qaddafi to go.
Yet, Obama’s unprovoked military offensive, in conjunction with NATO, is ostensibly divorced from this stated American goal. We began attacking Qaddafi’s forces and his compound while disavowing any intention to oust him. We are there only to protect civilians, administration officials maintain. Meanwhile, attacks against Qaddafi intensify, “rebel” atrocities against black Africans are ignored, and intervention hawks like Sen. John McCain (until recently a supporter of the U.S. embrace of Qaddafi) advocate that the rebels be armed and trained, notwithstanding their known terrorism ties.
Obama did not seek congressional authorization to commence combat operations in Libya. In compliance with the 1973 War Powers Act (WPA), however, he notified Congress about his commitment of U.S. forces. This triggered the 60-day time limit within which the WPA instructs a president to either obtain congressional approval or withdraw U.S. forces. That deadline came and went on May 21 with no congressional authorization and no movement to wind down the mission — even though, when he began bombing, Obama had assured Americans that the mission would last “days, not weeks.”
There is no reason why the War Powers Act/Resolution should not be considered binding.
Article I Section 8 spends more time detailing Congress's powers with regard to the armed forces than any other subject:
* To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
* To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
* To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
* To provide and maintain a navy;
* To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
* To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
* To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Meanwhile, the entirety of the President's military powers as defined in the Constitution:
* The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.
At all levels of command, we don't imbue military commanders the power to act ungoverned within their domains. Being Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy doesn't give Obama the power to commit the U.S. to military action, just the responsibility to manage that action when Congress decides to act, either by declaring war, or in response to something Congress has defined as piracy on the high seas, or as a violation of the law of nations.
Note that Congress is also empowered to "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." This is a very broad power. Congress is well within that power to simply make rules such as the WPA that state when troops must be brought back home. Note that this is a power to make "rules" not "laws" indicating that these rules need not be subject to the same procedures as those for passing laws -- they need not be subject to Presidential veto. Thus, the WPA, as a body of rules governing and regulating the armed forces, is completely Constitutional and within Congress' powers.
Excellent description of this Administration's criminal hostility to the basic rule of law and the abject COWARDS that have been elected to represent but have have failed. Wholesale impeachment of our corrupted political class is becoming increasingly needed. We must not settle for any of the go along lackeys that are currently looking for the top job. Time to reel in what has become thew Imperial Presidency!
Mr. McCarthy - I would have to say that Obama is so "Nixonesque" in his actions. Secondly, I would have to say that cloudbuster makes a compelling argument that the WPA is constitutional. What would be the counter-argument to it?
One of the Constitutitional sticking points in WPA is section 5(c) (codified at 50 USC 1544(c)). It states that Congress may, by joint resolution, direct the President to withdraw forces from a conflict when there is no formal declaration of war. This is seen by many as a violation of the separation of powers principle. Even though the President is Commander-in-Chief, he *IS NOT* a member of the Armed Forces so any comparison to a commissioned officer of any rank is spurious.
And the clause about "government and regulation" of military forces refers to Congress' ability to make the rules and regulations of the various armed forces. These are, in fact, laws like any other (see Title 10 of the United States Code) and thus subject to Presidential veto.
"The antiwar Left has gone mute — proving yet again that its main objection is not to war but to commanders-in-chief whose names are followed by the designation “R.”"
And thus is the most important lesson. 'Issues' aren't coming from deeply-held beliefs, they are tools to attack the competition.
Whether constitutional or not, congress should press Obama hard on WPA for the following reasons:
1. Obama needs to clarify what the heck it is we are trying to do in Libya!
2. Congress has a right/duty to defend its constitutional and legal powers (and I would expect any & all presidents to fight for their powers too. This is normal checks & balances stuff -- no branch should be "given a pass.")
3. Politically speaking, this is the Mother Of All Obama Betrayals. (Seriously there isn't one lefty in congress willing to be consistently antiwar when their own president is in power? Not ONE, really? And they wanted to impeach Bush for . . . what was it again???!!)
Carping uselessly from the sidelines, yes. Perfectly describes the article and the act to which it refers.
How about any substantive comment on the Libya policy? Nope.
The reality is that policy is in the US national interest, it just isn't being pursued vigorously enough. We've handed off to European allies who said they could handle it, but who so far can't.
We should just get Qaddafi from the air, or arm and advise the rebels to a ground victory, or invite the Egyptians to intervene and win the war for the rebels. All are decisive, the present muddle is not. At best, the present approach may eventually get Qaddafi in one of the pinprick airstrikes on his CCCI facilities. Or might not, indefinitely.
I agree that the WPA is irrelevant unless congress makes it so. The real question here is: why did Obama make the about face in Libya in the first place? - what is his aim? Is it simply to appease EU/Nato hawks and to keep the oil flowing? I don't buy that for a second. If he has no certain reason for putting our armed forces in harms way, he should be impeached. If he does have a compelling reason, he should explain it.
I am not going to debate the constitutional question, but I will defend the operation in Libya.
Point 1. No US soldiers have been killed, and minimal civilian casualties as a result of are actions. thus a large anti war protests seems unlikely regardless of who is president.
Point 2. McCarthy claims that Ghaddafi was an ally on the war on terror. So what? Does this give him a carte blanche to do whatever he wants to his own people? Furthermore he got the oil companies to pay the families of the lockerbee bombing. Don’t you just feel the power of his repentance.
Point 3. Mccarthy claims jihadist from Eastern Libya. I for one lived in Morocco for several years and I can tell you that Northern Morocco is were Islamism is strongest in that country. Reasons because for decades it was the most ignored part of the country by the government, so there were no government services, jobs, and people were angry (its getting better now) In this environment Islamism can thrive. A similar situation existed in Eastern Libya with Ghaddafi’s allies in the West getting all the money. Secondly as intellectually devoid as Islamism is, its still a hell of a lot stronger then the BS ghaddafi says in his green book. If those are the only two options, Islamism wins the debate in a landslide. This is no reason to believe that once a 3rd option is entered as it has been, that the 3rd option cannot carry the day.
Point 4. We are not the worlds policeman, but in this War the Europeans have been the strongest active force not us.
Point 5. Mccarthy claims of rebel atrocities towards black africans. Anyone have any link to such info. To me in looks like the Rebels in Misrata gave the black Africans a peaceful passage out at first opportunity. Yes there might have been some racism because of Ghaddafis usage of mercenaries, but highlight one case of a rebel killing someone because of the color of his skin. I have seen no such cases.
Point 6. Do you really want to have a case where a dictator can use oil money to buy the loyalties of 10% of the population, give them guns and military hardwear capable of crushing the other 90% if they uprise. That’s exactly what would have happened has Nato not stopped it. A dictator staying in power by having his forces open fire on protestors is not acceptable.
