The stunning collapse of the Libyan regime today should be counted as a half-victory for President Obama, a rebuke to the GOP’s new isolationist wing in the House, and a testament to the responsible leadership of such Senate Republicans as Jon Kyl and Mitch McConnell.
Obama did the right thing to order U.S. forces in, but it was done reluctantly, with the administration claiming it was not really at “war,” limiting the U.S. and its allies to enforcing a no-fly zone only, and then trying to reduce our participation in airstrikes. Obama’s foot-dragging prolonged the Libyan civil war and will reduce our ability to influence the post-Qaddafi regime, which may well have strong extremist elements.
But I think the new Republican isolationists in the House (and among the presidential candidates) will come out looking even worse. They opposed the president’s constitutional authority to use force abroad to protect U.S. national-security interests, yet they failed to put forward any serious proposals of their own for U.S. foreign policy in the region (aside from pulling out wholesale, I suppose). They not only contradicted the consistent position of Republican administrations on the war-powers issue, but they had no alternatives to put forward on what to do about Libya. These House members had plenty of company from the Democratic party’s antiwar Left, of course — but if they all thought the war was illegal and a bad idea, do they want to give Libya back to Qaddafi now?
It was the Senate Republican leaders (and some of the House leadership) who remained consistent — they resisted efforts to undercut the president’s constitutional authority, they supported continuing intervention in Libya, and they properly demanded that Obama do more to bring the war to a swift conclusion.
Republicans in both chambers, and on the campaign trail, should embrace Bush’s freedom agenda. It is in our interests to bring down the authoritarian dictatorships in the Middle East and hopefully replace them with democracies allied in some way with the United States — even if they don’t want to call it that. One can argue over the costs, or about the benefits of any individual intervention, but the spreading of democracy, freedom, and markets through persuasion, coercion, and sometimes force provides a principled foreign policy that is consistent with America’s greatness in the past and continues our exceptional role in the world in the future.
"They opposed the president’s constitutional authority to use force abroad to protect U.S. national-security interests"
Hmm. Here, I was wondering by what authority a president has to declare war.
Embrace the freedom agenda? Sure. My question is whether we could accomplish the agenda without using force every time.
Mr. Yoo, the Libya War had too little national interest to justify using military force. Unless, of course, you can show how DC was vexed by the problem as a significant security threat for years leading up to it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseQuote: "they failed to put forward any serious proposals of their own"
Are you serious? I disagree that the Republicans had to do anything. It's the President that should have sought authority from Congress and he failed to do so. Thus, the Republicans have nothing to work with except play politics. The Republican isolationists are few and they will not suffer for their actions regardless since President Obama's foreign policies are cracking up regardless of how Libya will turn out.
Sorry, you're wrong on this.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis, this, a thousand times this.
Congress was under no burden to present a single dang thing. It was the President's responsibility-- *constitutional* responsibility, to justify the use of military force for Congress to approve.
I'm no isolationist. I've supported every military operation in the modern age, launched by both Democratic and Republican presidents.
Not this one.
As vile as Qaddafi is, as much as he deserved what was coming, none of that excuses how the President did this.
But, the precedent is set, and I'm certain that the Left will grant the next Republican president identical latitude in fighting undeclared and unauthorized wars against any enemy he or she so chooses...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow... there is so much nonsense here. The only one who should be embarrassed is John Yoo. What an odious person. Merely repeating "the President's constitutional authority" doesn't make it so. Nor does holding the position that the President does not have unlimited power to wage war when he wants make one an "isolationist." It's a bit like liberals calling others racist at the drop of a hat. It's designed only to shut down debate. Don't like the President making war where and when he wants? Isolationist! I really wish I could say more, but this is a family website.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree with Mr. Yoo with regard to the War Powers Act. That said I don't agree with a "freedom agenda" unless it's American freedom. We have neither the wisdom nor the resources to bring about freedom in every country in the world. It's taking quite a beating here at home and we should focus on this more. I supported the war in Iraq and still would, but less on the idea of a "freedom agenda" and more on nation security interests.
We don't know what's coming in Libya. Let's hope and pray we don't want to give Libya (as if it's ours to give) back to Qaddafi.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, when a sharia-based Constitution is enacted by an Islamic-based government, we will breath a sigh of relief that the oh-so-brilliant in Washington were right again. Please....
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"but if they all thought the war was illegal and a bad idea, do they want to give Libya back to Qaddafi now?"
This is a very childish argument.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnother Brad, that one leapt out at me, too. How clueless can he get, to not only associate opposition to war-making with support for the opposing side. It is like he doesn't understand the debate at all, that he can only see "Qadaffi bad vs. Qadaffi good" and cannot see "not ours."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIsolationist is a strong label. Obama played very loose and fast to get his way without Congressional oversite for this wa - um.. kinetic military action (well, at least it wasn't a man made disaster).
Not every conflict should be leaped at and not every outcome is desirable. There are also alot of questions about the rebels. If I were Mr. Yoo, I might wait to see what kind of government is going to come about in Libya before I start taking any victory laps.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think the U.S. has little at stake on either side in Libya because all options have large downsides with little upside. People of good faith disagree on the best way to proceed in Libya but it simply isn't sufficiently important to dwell upon.
I think the U.S. made mistakes when it intervened in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Serbia, and attempted to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq after brilliant military campaigns that defeated their former governments. Fortunately, it is unlikely that we will make a similar mistake in Libya. Congratulations of a sort to President Obama on avoiding yet another foreign policy debacle.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"but if they all thought the war was illegal and a bad idea, do they want to give Libya back to Qaddafi now?"
They understand, correctly, that another sovereign state is not theirs to keep or give....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt ought to be possible to disagree about how general ideas, like promoting a freedom agenda, apply to specific situations without resorting to name calling. The limits of our time, money and blood mean that we cannot overthrow every single evil tyrant no matter how much that would improve the planet.
In this particular case, it is far from clear that the success of this Libyan rebellion will make for a better Libya, let along a better world. Therefore, I am more surprised that Professor Yoo is calling names now because this rebellion could turn really nasty. If (when) it does, will he and Senator McCain be making sincere apologies to those who proved a little wiser than they on this question? I doubt it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBeing an isolationist myself, I suggest: Let us hope that the wisdom of intervention, or its folly, becomes clear before the Republican nomination. My concern is that the collapse may appear to herald a better era there, without actually doing so; yet the candidates will fall all over themselves trying to appear as an interventionist, and be elected as such.
I note that the collapse of former South Vietnam worked out rather well for the Vietnamese, in the long run. It didn't work out so well for the thousands of Americans who died or were maimed there, often involuntarily due to the draft.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe fall of S. Vietnam worked out well for the Vietnamese people?????
Tell that to the 100's of thousands who risked their lives to escape? Tell that to the 10's of thousands who died.
If you believe that the fact that 30 years after taking over the country, the dictators have implemented a few forms of capitalism and that this has permitted an increase in their standard of living makes up for all the years of terror, then you are a sad specimen of humanity. Most historians believe that by holding back the tide of communism, the fight in Vietnam enabled the rest of the countries in that region to prepare themselves to hold off communism on their own.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is an embarrassing post, Mr. Yoo. Being against nation-building is not the same as being an isolationist. It's called adhering to the Constitution and to the policy set forth by George Washington himself (Switzerland-esque neutrality, avoidance of entangling alliances).
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusealternate hed:
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJohn Yoo Should Embarrass National Review
Re-visit this in 10 years when the NATO led occupation ends with the establishment of branch campus of the muslim brotherhood. The world is still decades away from a stable middle-east.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"National security interests", really John? Mind listing those?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe title Of this article screams exactly what is wrong with this country and its "news" which is often commentary. First as a moderate which has voted both Democrat and Republican Im sick of seeing mud slinging articles like this that further divide the country. Most Republicans and Democrats are seen hating each other on tv, but behind closed doors they are friends and often hang out at recreational functions.
To me we need to stop policing the world and start policing our country. We need to fix things here in this country because we no longer have the money for any of this.
Obama made many campaign promises that were broken and the number 1 issue was jobs and the economy. he's had almost 4 yrs and spent a TRILLION more then BUSH ever single year he's been in office thanks to two wars ( and skirmish's like in Libya dont help ), and also pledged to END the Iraq war immediately. Instead he waited till mid 2010 - in which an agreement actually signed from Bush's last days in office took effect which said the war would end when it did. Obama took credit for this of course, but that date was agree'd on in the last 6 months Bush was in office. Yet we're still there. Also we're in Iraq. MSNBC had daily coverage a woman protesting Bush for the Iraq war and when the same woman protested Obama for his broken promise 9 plus going to Afghanastan as well ) she was not given an hour of coverage. I guess thats because General Electric owns MSNBC. And as many of us know Obama "okayed" a deal that let General Electric pay ZERO taxes in 2010 ( their net income was 5.1 billion ) and they even got a 300 million dollar credit. So no wonder MSNBC hardly says anything bad about the man.
I remember Reagan taking over a US economy from Jimmy Carter that had a 12% unemployment rate and much worse inflation. Interest rates were horrible for housing too. Regan turned the country around in 17 month.. at 17 months growth of the economy began and it became the largest growth seen since WW2.. interest rates lowered and the jobless rate went down to 8%.. It wasn't until Clinton that things got better.. but Regan did ZERO bailouts.. Innovation creates demand for a product which makes jobs..and so does manufacturing. As great as thhings were in Clintons term.. he really screwed up with NAFTA.. maybe he didnt care that he was told it would hurt the country in the long run.. but now other Presidents starting with Bush had to deal with jobs leaving the country. Obama is dealing with it and to be fair NO single President should be blasted for every failure..
In the next election it wont matter who is in office.. because things are so bad they cant be fixed now. Obama might as well stay in there and take his medicine. His Healthcare Reform puts more money in the hands of Insurance Companies that already have too much money. the only aspect of the bill that is good is that sick people cant be dropped .. Otherwise the over 1k pages of this bill are full of backdoor deals like the ones in which Obama let GE slide with no TAXES.. and yet he says the rich need to pay their fair share of taxes ! WOW.. a man of many faces indeed..
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell isn't it nice for the neocons to claim victory in the bottom of the second inning. Well let's just go home and admit the neocons scored a run and is leading 1-0. Well Yoo, strap your boots on, shoulder your rifle and get your plane ticket, your ID, and put your toothpaste in a baggy. Because it's myopic tools like you who support these actions that have repercussions for decades. You or anyone like you have no clue what will follow. Why should the "new isolation wing" embrace anything called a "freedom agenda"? When the car bombs start detonating, the purges and public executions are shown on foxnews, and the new calls for shariah law and "down with the great satan", we can all look forward to your article again claiming that "the spreading of democracy, freedom, and markets through persuasion, coercion, and sometimes force provides a principled foreign policy that is consistent with America’s greatness......". yada yada yada
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse