Posted on 03/28/2011 11:49:31 AM PDT by logician2u
Any decision involving the commitment of American military personnel and combat resources is never easy. It requires as much personal reflection as it does strategic evaluation, all with the understanding of what is at stake and what is at risk. With Libya, it is improbable to think that the decision to create and enforce a no-fly zone was treated any differently.
The president and his administration were confronted with a tough choice. Either avoid the fight altogether and watch a humanitarian crisis unfold, or stand with the international community to protect others and assist rebel elements that are outnumbered and outmatched.
In this case, President Barack Obama made a decision that is consistent with his role as commander-in-chief – in fact, a judgment that conformed to calls from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Part of the criticism against the administration is that Congress was never properly notified nor was the Libya operation put to a vote. Such a critique is seemingly based more on feelings of frustration because of the administration’s previous dealings with Congress and the public than whether it is an unlawful or perhaps even intentional oversight.
The War Powers Resolution provides the president with the authority to conduct limited operations absent a declaration of war or use of force resolution from Congress. The reason for this authority is simple. Imagine for a second that a president is confronted with a situation requiring limited military involvement but, rather than having the ability to act quickly, an open consultation process with Congress must first occur. Under that scenario, the element of surprise is lost while strategic intent and operational planning are broadcast worldwide, risking the mission at hand, combat resources and the lives of America’s military men and women.
Open deliberation or any formal pronouncement to Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi would only have provided more time and opportunity to reposition personnel and tactical resources, such as artillery and anti-aircraft weapons. Now, due in large part to the advantage of superior air power, a line has been drawn between the rebels and Gadhafi’s troops, while civilian populations are under far less threat of attack than before.
All of this is not to say that the president is relieved of conveying to Congress and the American people the exact parameters of the Libyan mission and continuing an informational exchange on day-to-day operations. Depending on the duration of the military activity, there is also the likelihood that Congress will consider some type of measure pertaining to the operation. Unknown, of course, is whether the measure would halt, continue or redefine the scope of the mission as it goes along.
What is important to distinguish is that the War Powers Resolution does not provide the president with an unrestricted authorization or blank check. It does, however, give the president the authority to take particular action that is viewed within the national interest. Presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton all acted in this arena and there surely will be future presidents who exercise this prerogative, too. Attempting to abolish the War Powers Resolution, as some have suggested, is not the solution, but rather a knee-jerk reaction to the idea that any military response, regardless of its significance, is an act of war.
All things considered, the speed and efficiency of the Libya operation is a testament to the strength of America’s military and our allies. A no-fly zone has been established and attacks against civilian populations have decreased markedly. Other countries will soon collectively accept the primary leadership role as we keep our eye on winning in Afghanistan – our nation’s paramount priority in the global fight against terrorism.
Regardless of how things turn out in Libya, there is absolutely no reason to commit American ground troops to the region, either now or at any time in the future. This option does not appear to be on the table and rightly so. Assisting with air capability is one thing. However, combat operations with ground troops is another. Putting American troops in the cross-hairs of enemy fighters and ensuring a continued regional presence for some time to come is not the answer.
The president does have an obligation to Congress and the American people to define the mission in Libya, including plans to transition full mission responsibility to our coalition partners. This must happen soon; otherwise, Congress is entirely within its constitutional authority to take such action on itself. For the time being, at least, a major humanitarian crisis has been avoided and coalition aircraft now control the skies over Libya.
Where is our Speaker of the House on this? I am sure this is tissue worthy.
One group of islamists for another. What a monumental load of crap!
What was/is our interest in Libya? Why should we consider investing lives, and treasure in attacking Libya? What of benefit to the United States will be gained from the assault on Libya?
The President dithered, waffled for a couple of weeks prior to making his decision based upon a United Nations resolution, and had to be convinced then by his Socialist alleged Nat’l Security adviser, and his Socialist SOS to assault Libya for the purpose of “R2P Humanitarian Wars”.
It was, and isn’t in our interests to go to limited, kinetic, engagement in Libya. It was the United Nations interests. Screw them, and screw anyone that concedes to resolutions by the UN, over our own Congress.
“Either avoid the fight altogether and watch a humanitarian crisis unfold, or stand with the international community to protect others and assist rebel elements that are outnumbered and outmatched.”
Well, what the hell here... How about the Green Movement in Iran in 2009? They were demonstrably anti-authoritarian and pro-West. Yet, NOTHING was done to help THEM!!!! So, along comes an al-Qaeda - supported insurgency in Libya, and suddenly we’re compelled to help THEM?
From what I understand the majority of the people are not on board with this. However, American history shows clearly that the electorate is as dumb as a box of rocks and are far more likely to vote for an absolute fraud than a wise man. We have elected only a handful of great leaders as president in our entire history.
WRONG
The War Powers act does NOT give the POTUS carte-blanche to use the military as his toy. There has to be a tangible threat to the United States or its interests, or a statute of some sort. Neither of these apply to Libya. Also, the POTUS is required to provide Congress with an explanation of why this action is necessary to prevent a threat to the US.
Regardless of how you feel about Libya, this sets a really bad precedent.
Hunter is WRONG.
Sorry, Duncan... you’re dead wrong on this one.
“Apparently no one in the GOP has the brains or guts to call this what it is. Even Sarah is drinking the kool-aid. Pretty damn sad.”
Especially when this is potentially bad in keeping al qaeda alive and going. I personally wish we could just have some other “boogeyman” to worry about. We didn’t take sides the first time al qaeda tried to take over the Middle East back in the 90s before they started their main stream of desperate acts against America.
So, should the people of the US revolt we can expect Obama to accept another nation to attack US forces to prevent them from stopping us? Cool. Let’s get busy.
..this article is from the son, not Pissant's presidential pick.
Sucking on the public teat for 28 years in congress should tell you everything to you need to know about this guy.
Nothing like siding up with al-qaida murderers, aka, “rebels.” These rebels are eerily reminiscent of the warlords that drove the Russians out of Afghanistan.
Siding with Obama on anything is inherently suspect.
My bad, sorry - thought it was Sr. Hunter in a column.
Please, if you will, try to project the policy that's been implemented into the next six months, year, or until the end of 0bama's reign on Jan. 20, 2013. More of these interventions are likely to occur unless Congress gets up on its high horse and puts a stop to them.
It's not a question of who we are supporting or whether the country in question is run as a dictatorship. And it's not whether it's a "humanitarian mission" to save lives.
It's whether the President, all by himself, has or should have the power to initiate war on another sovereign nation. That's what the Founders of this country were most concerned about, and the reason for that line in the Constitution, Article I, Section 8.
War is a serious--the most serious--act a nation's government can commit to. It is not something you would want one person, no matter how well-liked or experienced or knowledgeable in military matters, having power to declare on another nation.
It's time for a serious discussion about how far afield we've gone from the days when Congress had the powers--and only those powers--delegated to it in the Constitution.
We have NO national interest in Libya. Period.
It is NOT the job of the US to act as policeman for the planet, nor is it up to the American taxpayer to fund any such mission.
This whole Libya thing is bunk.
Am I missing something?
Barry had no right entering the US in a war w/o the approval of congress. Hunter has lost my respect and support.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.