An Illegal War and a Fight over Libya
A little battle is going on in the power circles of the United States, but everything indicates that the more belligerent force has an advantage in the skirmish. The talk is about the “legality” of the military intervention against Libya, lead by the United States under the umbrella of NATO.
Congress is debating the topic, because as in other instances (almost all) the President gave orders without consulting the legislative body, and in this case (as in previous ones) the goal was a fast and forceful blow that prolonged itself without fulfilling its prime objective, the physical elimination of Qadhafi and the establishment of a government in tune with Western interests.
As a result a debate has arisen. Barack Obama has not managed to convince all of Congress. It is even said that he did not convince some of his legal advisers that the participation of his troops in the “hostilities” was within his powers as Commander-in-Chief, not to speak of U.S. citizens. They mostly oppose this conflict, as it is more money that they would prefer to see spent on the country's many existing social problems, from unemployment to the absence and deficiencies in services such as education and health care, to name only two.
After more than a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, several thousand Americans have died and $1.3 trillion has been spent. The budget for the Libyan war has barely reached one billion.
There is one argument for the legalists: in the case of Libya the prerogative of the president to act as Commander-in-Chief does not apply, because American troops have not been shot at, nor are they threatened with danger, but the United States, as stated by the New York Times, is simply carrying out a U.N. resolution. Therefore, if Obama wants to send in grounds troops he needs the consent of Congress.
Joe Heck, a Republican Representative from Nevada and a member of the House Intelligence Committee, has put an amendment on the table that prohibits the use of government funds to continue the operation in Libya, even if this implies the end of the war. The Democratic Representative from Ohio is also intrepidly fighting for a cut in funds, together with 10 other legislators ready to enter a juridical dispute against Obama for not having asked for Congressional approval.
With regard to the decision of the boss in the White House, some, such as John Boehner, speaker of the House of Representatives and a Republican at that, have said that Obama did not sufficiently explain the size and necessity of the U.S. mission in Libya. Analysts say that the president did not convince many in the Capitol when he noted that he did not need approval for the operations, which, as they understand it, were not within the “hostilities” provided for in the War Powers Resolution that the congressmen want to apply.
Of course, this battle in the U.S. also has defenders on the other side. The Republican Senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, a hardliner in American politics, has openly declared that Congress should not interfere with U.S. operations in Libya. “Congress should sort of shut up and not empower Qadhafi.”
Let us remember that the U.S. supplies planning, intelligence, supervision, reconnaissance, ammunition and bombs of the highest technology – including the bunker busters, besides pilotless drones and airplanes to launch missiles in the campaign against Libya, without any momentary need to send in ground troops to fulfill “the mission.” Except that this “preventive” war – which technically and semantically is not a war for the U.S. – was started with aerial bombardments in March.
Almost half a year of hostilities has passed without the objective being fulfilled, but instead quite a lot of money has been spent, with checks of several million dollars, when the administration thought and believed that everything would be of very short duration.
Another person advising Congress not to cut war funds is the still incumbent, but soon to leave office Secretary of State Robert Gates. In his statements to CNN he assured that it is “always a mistake” to cut funds on a war in progress, especially when it, as he understands it, “will end OK” if allowed to continue. Therefore, he says, Congress should not use the War Powers Resolution, which calls for its approval in any warlike conflict. To argue his case, he joined Obama’s side and talked about “hostilities.”
This week, the House of Representatives will discuss the matter, but one should not believe that this will end the war. The battle raging in Washington is simply a pure exercise in democratic hypocrisy, a skirmish to prove that the American Eagle has more than just one wing.
Congress is debating the topic, because as in other instances (almost all) the President gave orders without consulting the legislative body, and in this case (as in previous ones) the goal was a fast and forceful blow that prolonged itself without fulfilling its prime objective, the physical elimination of Qadhafi and the establishment of a government in tune with Western interests.
As a result a debate has arisen. Barack Obama has not managed to convince all of Congress. It is even said that he did not convince some of his legal advisers that the participation of his troops in the “hostilities” was within his powers as Commander-in-Chief, not to speak of U.S. citizens. They mostly oppose this conflict, as it is more money that they would prefer to see spent on the country's many existing social problems, from unemployment to the absence and deficiencies in services such as education and health care, to name only two.
After more than a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, several thousand Americans have died and $1.3 trillion has been spent. The budget for the Libyan war has barely reached one billion.
There is one argument for the legalists: in the case of Libya the prerogative of the president to act as Commander-in-Chief does not apply, because American troops have not been shot at, nor are they threatened with danger, but the United States, as stated by the New York Times, is simply carrying out a U.N. resolution. Therefore, if Obama wants to send in grounds troops he needs the consent of Congress.
Joe Heck, a Republican Representative from Nevada and a member of the House Intelligence Committee, has put an amendment on the table that prohibits the use of government funds to continue the operation in Libya, even if this implies the end of the war. The Democratic Representative from Ohio is also intrepidly fighting for a cut in funds, together with 10 other legislators ready to enter a juridical dispute against Obama for not having asked for Congressional approval.
With regard to the decision of the boss in the White House, some, such as John Boehner, speaker of the House of Representatives and a Republican at that, have said that Obama did not sufficiently explain the size and necessity of the U.S. mission in Libya. Analysts say that the president did not convince many in the Capitol when he noted that he did not need approval for the operations, which, as they understand it, were not within the “hostilities” provided for in the War Powers Resolution that the congressmen want to apply.
Of course, this battle in the U.S. also has defenders on the other side. The Republican Senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, a hardliner in American politics, has openly declared that Congress should not interfere with U.S. operations in Libya. “Congress should sort of shut up and not empower Qadhafi.”
Let us remember that the U.S. supplies planning, intelligence, supervision, reconnaissance, ammunition and bombs of the highest technology – including the bunker busters, besides pilotless drones and airplanes to launch missiles in the campaign against Libya, without any momentary need to send in ground troops to fulfill “the mission.” Except that this “preventive” war – which technically and semantically is not a war for the U.S. – was started with aerial bombardments in March.
Almost half a year of hostilities has passed without the objective being fulfilled, but instead quite a lot of money has been spent, with checks of several million dollars, when the administration thought and believed that everything would be of very short duration.
Another person advising Congress not to cut war funds is the still incumbent, but soon to leave office Secretary of State Robert Gates. In his statements to CNN he assured that it is “always a mistake” to cut funds on a war in progress, especially when it, as he understands it, “will end OK” if allowed to continue. Therefore, he says, Congress should not use the War Powers Resolution, which calls for its approval in any warlike conflict. To argue his case, he joined Obama’s side and talked about “hostilities.”
This week, the House of Representatives will discuss the matter, but one should not believe that this will end the war. The battle raging in Washington is simply a pure exercise in democratic hypocrisy, a skirmish to prove that the American Eagle has more than just one wing.
Previous article![]( "The Strategic Consequences of Obama’s Afghanistan Decision")
