Obama’s War?
NATO recognizes that the missiles it used in Libya have caused bloodshed, killing nine civilians and injuring 15 others last weekend. What is the cost, in lives, of American attacks using remotely-operated drone planes? What is the magnitude of the damage done to the environmental and social infrastructure? The answers to these questions will probably come to light when the documents containing them become declassified in three to four decades. That will be when the destiny of the sharing of power and resources in dispute today will have already been decided and, of course, when controversy no longer abounds (although it will never stop provoking indignation) from the number of nameless victims.
Meanwhile, congressional leaders in the United States are questioning the legality of the decisions attributed to Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama.
According to international press agencies, the White House’s legal adviser, Bob Bauer, and the legal adviser of the State Department, Harold Koh, believe that the participation of the United States in the military operations against Libya do not count as “hostilities,” and therefore the president did not require the backing of Congress to authorize the military intervention. Jeh Johnson, the Pentagon’s lawyer, is directly opposed to these beliefs, as is Caroline Krass, the Justice Department’s legal adviser.
The discussions within the American government are important to note because they reveal discrepancies around the definition of “national interests” and make it clear that Clinton and Obama comply with their commitments to the sectors benefiting from war, giving continuity to the aggressive actions (the massacres and looting in Libya) that serve as resources that undoubtedly strengthen America’s hegemonic power.
The reviews on the compliance to the War Powers Resolution of 1973 contribute, however, in making one crucial factor invisible from the rest of the world: The United States leads an occupation force that the U.N. has supported while giving it another non-bellicose name. Furthermore, NATO’s participation cements that fact and twists it by presenting itself as a multilateral force.
Whether authorized by the U.S. Congress and sanctioned by the U.N., the massacre and invasion of Libya are condemnable.
What right does the U.N. invoke in continuing to encourage the American military presence in North Africa, and facilitating military operations with the intention of looting and gaining political control? Even if Ban Ki-moon says otherwise, the political imposition that we see now defines the international political order, an order whose hegemony promulgates military aggression, looting and other criminal acts. It is the duty of the conscience to denounce it.
Meanwhile, congressional leaders in the United States are questioning the legality of the decisions attributed to Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama.
According to international press agencies, the White House’s legal adviser, Bob Bauer, and the legal adviser of the State Department, Harold Koh, believe that the participation of the United States in the military operations against Libya do not count as “hostilities,” and therefore the president did not require the backing of Congress to authorize the military intervention. Jeh Johnson, the Pentagon’s lawyer, is directly opposed to these beliefs, as is Caroline Krass, the Justice Department’s legal adviser.
The discussions within the American government are important to note because they reveal discrepancies around the definition of “national interests” and make it clear that Clinton and Obama comply with their commitments to the sectors benefiting from war, giving continuity to the aggressive actions (the massacres and looting in Libya) that serve as resources that undoubtedly strengthen America’s hegemonic power.
The reviews on the compliance to the War Powers Resolution of 1973 contribute, however, in making one crucial factor invisible from the rest of the world: The United States leads an occupation force that the U.N. has supported while giving it another non-bellicose name. Furthermore, NATO’s participation cements that fact and twists it by presenting itself as a multilateral force.
Whether authorized by the U.S. Congress and sanctioned by the U.N., the massacre and invasion of Libya are condemnable.
What right does the U.N. invoke in continuing to encourage the American military presence in North Africa, and facilitating military operations with the intention of looting and gaining political control? Even if Ban Ki-moon says otherwise, the political imposition that we see now defines the international political order, an order whose hegemony promulgates military aggression, looting and other criminal acts. It is the duty of the conscience to denounce it.