Obama and the War Costs Trick
The U.S. Congress has put president Obama under pressure about the operation in Libya. Congress is demanding it gets a say. Obama responded with an amazing trick and explained that the mission is not a war. However, he cannot talk his way out of the escalating costs.
In Washington, the criticism of America's ongoing operation in Libya is gaining steam. This is why the White House decided to take an unusual step on Wednesday. It gave Congress a detailed report on the mission and then emailed it to the press corps.
Controversy has broken out over the U.S. operation in Libya. Representatives and senators question both the legality and the escalating costs of U.S. military action. Congress feels ignored by president Obama, accusing him of exceeding his authority with the war in Libya.
This is because only Congress can legally declare wars. Congress claims that Obama should have asked permission 60 days after the event at the latest, but this period expired on May 20. After another 30 days — in other words, next Sunday — the troops will have to be withdrawn.
The legal accusations are a particular sore spot for Obama; after all, he is a constitutional expert. As a campaigner, he accused his predecessor George W. Bush of exceeding his authority, particularly by implementing his harsh anti-terrorism policy. In contrast to Bush, when Obama took up office, he swore to strictly abide by the law.
However, the report that has now been submitted was not enough to reassure Obama’s critics. One particular passage in the report — way down on page 25 — ought to leave a nasty taste in the mouths of many representatives, particularly as Obama makes use of an amazing trick to silence his critics.
Why the War Should Not Be a War
On Wednesday, Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner gave Obama an ultimatum in writing: even if the War Powers Resolution of 1973 — the law that followed the War Power Act of 1917, which regulated war authority — is loosely interpreted, Obama’s shutoff period is over. The president obviously believes that the legal situation does not apply to Libya, or he considers it to be unconstitutional. Either way, Boehner “respectfully” demanded answers.
Obama is now delivering them, with a legal somersault.
The report states that the “constrained” Libya operation does not even fulfill the definition of war. According to it, the operation had a “limited nature, scope and duration” and therefore did not correspond to any “kind of ‘hostilities’” as regulated in the War Powers Resolution. The government wrote that “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces.” Also, the report states that no U.S. ground troops were in operation.
The White House gave a detailed list of how the role of the U.S. had reduced since the beginning of the mission. Since May 31, two thirds of over 10,000 flight operations have been paid for by non-U.S. coalition partners, and this trend is on the increase. The ships that were surveilling the arms embargo apparently came from Europe or Canada. At the same time, the U.S. provided almost 70 percent of the intelligence information and the majority of the refuelling capacities. Furthermore, since April 23, unmanned U.S. drones have been in operation against “a limited set of clearly defined targets.”
“We Are Acting Lawfully”
“We do not have any troops on the ground,” emphasized a high-ranking government official on Wednesday evening. “We are not proceeding with any lasting battles.” Therefore, the “activities” do not fall under the statute that would require Obama to ask for permission. Harold Koh, legal adviser of the Department of State, also told the New York Times that “we are acting lawfully.”
Not everybody is of this opinion. Ten members of Congress — three Democrats, seven Republicans — lodged a complaint against Obama on Wednesday to force him to withdraw U.S. forces from the NATO mission. “The law was broken,” announced Dennis Kucinich, a Democratic representative. However, such complaints are rarely successful and are mostly just symbolic.
The White House also defended itself against complaints that it did not give the representatives satisfactory information about the operation. Congress was apparently “consulted extensively”: since March 1, government officials apparently bore witness to more than ten congressional hearings on Libya, took part in more than 30 high-ranking briefings and had dozens of telephone calls with individual representatives. Furthermore, more than 1,600 Congress officials were sent 32 status reports by email.
More than $1 Billion in War Costs
First of all, the Obama administration broke down detailed information about the total cost of the war against Gadhafi. These costs are much higher than shown in public records so far. According to the administration, the operation will cost the United States more than $1 billion in this financial year, which ends on Sept. 30. That is also the expiry date of the second 90-day authorization by NATO.
• The United States has already spent $715.9 million (cut-off date June 3) for military pay, transport, flights, munitions and supplies, among other things.
• The government has estimated total expenditure to be $1.1 billion by the end of September.
• The lion's share is allotted to current operational costs ($618 million), followed by munitions ($450 million) and transport ($450 million).
• The smallest single item is humanitarian help: $1 million.
On the other hand, the Pentagon has estimated that the Air Force will save almost $300 million on other running costs. Thus, in actuality, the total expenditure only amounts to approximately $800 million..
In light of the escalating budget debate with President Obama and the Democrats on one side and the Republicans on the other, such astronomical sums ought to cause a new, heated debate.
To justify the costs and the political debate, the White House strives to present concrete results of the mission in its report, which states that the coalition’s efforts have been “effective” so far: “The regime has suffered numerous defeats, cities and towns across Libya have been liberated from brutal sieges, strong sanctions are in place and the regime is encountering serious difficulties raising revenues through oil sales or other means.”
Editor’s note: The full White House report, entitled “United States Activities in Libya,” is available here: http://publicintelligence.net/obama-administration-report-on-legal-justification-for-military-actions-in-libya/
In Washington, the criticism of America's ongoing operation in Libya is gaining steam. This is why the White House decided to take an unusual step on Wednesday. It gave Congress a detailed report on the mission and then emailed it to the press corps.
Controversy has broken out over the U.S. operation in Libya. Representatives and senators question both the legality and the escalating costs of U.S. military action. Congress feels ignored by president Obama, accusing him of exceeding his authority with the war in Libya.
This is because only Congress can legally declare wars. Congress claims that Obama should have asked permission 60 days after the event at the latest, but this period expired on May 20. After another 30 days — in other words, next Sunday — the troops will have to be withdrawn.
The legal accusations are a particular sore spot for Obama; after all, he is a constitutional expert. As a campaigner, he accused his predecessor George W. Bush of exceeding his authority, particularly by implementing his harsh anti-terrorism policy. In contrast to Bush, when Obama took up office, he swore to strictly abide by the law.
However, the report that has now been submitted was not enough to reassure Obama’s critics. One particular passage in the report — way down on page 25 — ought to leave a nasty taste in the mouths of many representatives, particularly as Obama makes use of an amazing trick to silence his critics.
Why the War Should Not Be a War
On Wednesday, Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner gave Obama an ultimatum in writing: even if the War Powers Resolution of 1973 — the law that followed the War Power Act of 1917, which regulated war authority — is loosely interpreted, Obama’s shutoff period is over. The president obviously believes that the legal situation does not apply to Libya, or he considers it to be unconstitutional. Either way, Boehner “respectfully” demanded answers.
Obama is now delivering them, with a legal somersault.
The report states that the “constrained” Libya operation does not even fulfill the definition of war. According to it, the operation had a “limited nature, scope and duration” and therefore did not correspond to any “kind of ‘hostilities’” as regulated in the War Powers Resolution. The government wrote that “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces.” Also, the report states that no U.S. ground troops were in operation.
The White House gave a detailed list of how the role of the U.S. had reduced since the beginning of the mission. Since May 31, two thirds of over 10,000 flight operations have been paid for by non-U.S. coalition partners, and this trend is on the increase. The ships that were surveilling the arms embargo apparently came from Europe or Canada. At the same time, the U.S. provided almost 70 percent of the intelligence information and the majority of the refuelling capacities. Furthermore, since April 23, unmanned U.S. drones have been in operation against “a limited set of clearly defined targets.”
“We Are Acting Lawfully”
“We do not have any troops on the ground,” emphasized a high-ranking government official on Wednesday evening. “We are not proceeding with any lasting battles.” Therefore, the “activities” do not fall under the statute that would require Obama to ask for permission. Harold Koh, legal adviser of the Department of State, also told the New York Times that “we are acting lawfully.”
Not everybody is of this opinion. Ten members of Congress — three Democrats, seven Republicans — lodged a complaint against Obama on Wednesday to force him to withdraw U.S. forces from the NATO mission. “The law was broken,” announced Dennis Kucinich, a Democratic representative. However, such complaints are rarely successful and are mostly just symbolic.
The White House also defended itself against complaints that it did not give the representatives satisfactory information about the operation. Congress was apparently “consulted extensively”: since March 1, government officials apparently bore witness to more than ten congressional hearings on Libya, took part in more than 30 high-ranking briefings and had dozens of telephone calls with individual representatives. Furthermore, more than 1,600 Congress officials were sent 32 status reports by email.
More than $1 Billion in War Costs
First of all, the Obama administration broke down detailed information about the total cost of the war against Gadhafi. These costs are much higher than shown in public records so far. According to the administration, the operation will cost the United States more than $1 billion in this financial year, which ends on Sept. 30. That is also the expiry date of the second 90-day authorization by NATO.
• The United States has already spent $715.9 million (cut-off date June 3) for military pay, transport, flights, munitions and supplies, among other things.
• The government has estimated total expenditure to be $1.1 billion by the end of September.
• The lion's share is allotted to current operational costs ($618 million), followed by munitions ($450 million) and transport ($450 million).
• The smallest single item is humanitarian help: $1 million.
On the other hand, the Pentagon has estimated that the Air Force will save almost $300 million on other running costs. Thus, in actuality, the total expenditure only amounts to approximately $800 million..
In light of the escalating budget debate with President Obama and the Democrats on one side and the Republicans on the other, such astronomical sums ought to cause a new, heated debate.
To justify the costs and the political debate, the White House strives to present concrete results of the mission in its report, which states that the coalition’s efforts have been “effective” so far: “The regime has suffered numerous defeats, cities and towns across Libya have been liberated from brutal sieges, strong sanctions are in place and the regime is encountering serious difficulties raising revenues through oil sales or other means.”
Editor’s note: The full White House report, entitled “United States Activities in Libya,” is available here: http://publicintelligence.net/obama-administration-report-on-legal-justification-for-military-actions-in-libya/
Next article![]( "The U.S. Withdrawal from Iraq: Pros and Cons")
