He got confused between the NCAA and Libya and, well, the rest will soon be history.
.jpg)
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.
Yep. True colors.
It is better NOT to attack the mission while we have troops engaged.
It's actually worse than bunk.
It's bad enough to pick sides in a civil war that does not concern us, but we have picked the wrong side.
If Gaddafi wins, I doubt very much if he will try to set up a caliphate.
On the other hand, if the rebels win...
How hard is it to say,
“I probably can support this military action substantively, but procedurally, there was no good reason for the President NOT to consult Congress first. (Especially THIS President, who rose to power in part by sharply criticizing his predecessor for supposedly rushing into pre-emptive wars.)”
Everyone’s a RINO. God’s a RINO. No one is True Blue except me and you.
They’re all out to get us. Sarah’s a RINO, Mother Angelica’s a RINO. Pat Buchanan’s a RINO, Ronald Reagan’s a RINO.
RINO here, RINO there, everyone’s a RINO. Let’s hate ‘em all, shoot ‘em all, tirade ‘em all. It’s the FR way.
“Except pissant got the zot!”
again?
I looked real hard hoping it was “Duncan ‘B’unter” or something, but alas it wasn’t.
Man this was a terrible call on Duncan’s part.
It is so demoralizing to be a Conservative today. You almost feel as if you’re being gamed when people act like they agree with you one moment, then dive off the deep end the next.
There’s no excuse for the U. S. attacking Libya. Why should we expend hundreds of millions of dollars to do the Muslim Brotherhood or Al Qaeda’s dirty work?
Just damn, Duncan. Buy a friggen clue.
It’s kind of sad that our electoral choices are limited to Democrats who want to do social work at home and Republicans who want to use the military to do social work abroad.
I think 0bama intervened only because the additional cost of supporting the operations will bankrupt The Country sooner.
Mark Levin what a joke, I lost respect for him when he refused to address the BC issue.
Thank me very much.
He got confused between the NCAA and Libya and, well, the rest will soon be history.
GOP - Gonads OPtional
GOP - Gonads OPtional
This post is one of the most blatant pieces of rationalizing ever done to kiss up to Obama and his enablers. It even hides/distorts the fact such actions are to be taken only when this Nation is subject to imminent danger. Where in the posting does it say/prove imminent danger? Tell me why the USA has not used armed forces before in the multitude of similar situations. That such use of our armed forces has been done in the past for CinC purposes with excuses doesn’t give pass for the test of Constitutional correctness now. This is nothing more than an impostor proving he is CinC. some thing he never earned by volunteering for real military service.
This post is one of the most blatant pieces of rationalizing ever done to kiss up to Obama and his enablers. It even hides/distorts the fact such actions are to be taken only when this Nation is subject to imminent danger. Where in the posting does it say/prove imminent danger? Tell me why the USA has not used armed forces before in the multitude of similar situations. That such use of our armed forces has been done in the past for CinC purposes with excuses doesn’t give pass for the test of Constitutional correctness now. This is nothing more than an impostor proving he is CinC. some thing he never earned by volunteering for real military service.
Exceptions, of course, are candidates willing to throw big bucks of their own into TV and print advertising such as, currently, Donald Trump. He gets a lot of free air time and plenty of ink in the expectation that he'll shower money on the media should he decide to run.
You are right that we have two parties devoted to social work, though. Neither is particularly friendly to an old-fashioned concept called "freedom."
Some military veterans learn to appreciate the heavy responsibility that comes with waging war and spend the rest of their waking days trying to prevent it.
Others, and I have to put Rep. Duncan and his father in this category, look back at the wars they were a part of and, being survivors, may tend to underestimate the risks and overestimate the importance of "military action" relative to alternatives in achieving a desired result.
They view warfare from a different perspective than ordinary Americans because of their personal experience in the military, which does not necessarily qualify them to make national policy decisions but does, unfortunately, attract the civilian public's attention (and even admiration) when these veterans speak or write about current world events.
Personally, I'd have no more respect for 0bama if he'd worn a uniform before becoming President. The country has had its share of former military officers who made bad Presidents. Think of Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, and (almost) McCain and be thankful they didn't ruin the nation even more than they did.
Ooops, missed that one. When did it happen? What did he post that upset the Viking kitties?
Yeah, they both laced on the boots and put their asses on the line for their country.
Thanks. (I’ll be sure to keep any anti-Sarah thoughts to myself!)
We're not discussing the Hunters' willingness to fight for what is right. Rather, this thread is about the supposed power of the President to commit American military forces on the basis of a UN resolution and nothing more.
Rep. Hunter writes, rather unconvincingly, that he has that prerogative. Most of the comments posted here take the opposite view, some qualified by "we're supporting the wrong side."
If you have an opinion on that, let's have it.
Hunter never mentioned the UN. Why put words in Hunters mouth?
Now why don't you post a quote from Hunter's article that you disagree with.
Well not too many relatively speaking. In a nation of over 300 million there are about 20 mllion veterans.
I’ll buy your opinion about officers not necessarily making good POTUSA and throw in Grant to boot. However, as WWII vet just missing a possible Japan invasion and with a sole brother killed on Okinawa, I have an attitude about service people having given some special time with appreciation for opportunities this Nation historically has afforded. Military service gives a somewhat better understanding of what is really involved in the strength of this Nation, not that there are no pluses and minuses. I don’t know that I would want an Obama serving as he doesn’t impress me as one fit for military service in several ways. His only use of the military is for his own grandiosment as CinC. There are very good people without service who are qualified for POTUSA, I believe Cain is one , but communty organizers are not high on my list.
I’ll buy your opinion about officers not necessarily making good POTUSA and throw in Grant to boot. However, as WWII vet just missing a possible Japan invasion and with a sole brother killed on Okinawa, I have an attitude about service people having given some special time with appreciation for opportunities this Nation historically has afforded. Military service gives a somewhat better understanding of what is really involved in the strength of this Nation, not that there are no pluses and minuses. I don’t know that I would want an Obama serving as he doesn’t impress me as one fit for military service in several ways. His only use of the military is for his own grandiosment as CinC. There are very good people without service who are qualified for POTUSA, I believe Cain is one , but communty organizers are not high on my list.
THe fact that Obama is a hypocrite doesn’t change the fact that Duncan Hunter is correct. In this instance, we have the added obligation of vengence for the Americans murdered by Ghaddafi.
If Ghaddafi remains, this was a waste of time. If he dies, this was justice delayed.
No matter what you think of the rebels, Al Queda or not, they can see that the US has an enormously long memory. If they threaten the US, we’ll kill them too. You’ve got two murderers in a room and only one bullet, today. Let’s settle the old business first.
THe fact that Obama is a hypocrite doesn’t change the fact that Duncan Hunter is correct. In this instance, we have the added obligation of vengence for the Americans murdered by Ghaddafi.
If Ghaddafi remains, this was a waste of time. If he dies, this was justice delayed.
No matter what you think of the rebels, Al Queda or not, they can see that the US has an enormously long memory. If they threaten the US, we’ll kill them too. You’ve got two murderers in a room and only one bullet, today. Let’s settle the old business first.
Please. Reagan's bombing of Libya was a penalty for that and W saw to it reparations were paid for those actions as a condition of normalizing relations. You don't strike back, exact a penalty, settle the case and come back and say, "just kidding," in international affairs. That behavior ejects all manner of diplomatic credibility from the United States.
Rebels in a civil war. They knew what they were taking on.
"Humanitarian crisis?" Was Gaddafi shipping train cars of persons to concentration camps? No. Was Gaddafi using chemical weapons to kill thousands? No.
What about Darfur? Iran? Syria? China?
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.
How is it not his right to defend against insurrection? Obama had time for "open deliberation" at the UN but not the Congress of which you are a part? How is that acceptable to you?
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.
Interference in a civil war. These "rebels" include al queda and sympathizers who fought YOU and other Americans on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq.
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.
Again, Duncan: he had time for the UN but not the Congress of which you are a part?
How stupid do you your constituents are?
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.
Congress should not wait. It should assert constitutional authority. If you want to support and fund this new war, do it. If you believe in Obama's mission put it in writing.
The longer you allow yourselves to be sidelined, the more constitutional authority you concede to foreign powers, the UN and an imperial presidency.
This costly mission is unspecific, not a vital American interest, with an ill-defined goal, shows signs of mission creep and has real questions about who these rebels are we've been dragged into supporting are.
This is an unjustified neocon interventionist adventure about European oil, not humanitarian concerns. The chaos created by this administration demands accountability. It's time for Congress to step up and do the job they swore an oath to do.
There is so much in Hunter's op-ed that won't stand up to the harsh light of reality it's a waste of my time and yours to do a point-by-point rebuttal.
However, I see that newzjunkey made a good start in his post above, to which I would add (based on what I heard 0bama say last evening) Hunter is totally off-base in his thinking that the massive aerial attack on Libya begun on the night of March 19 was some kind of a surprise.
Of course Gadhafi had been warned ahead of time, and the whole world had to have been aware that the UN Security Council had "authorized" establishment of a "no-fly zone" which to the layman means little but to a Marine veteran of two wars means, just as SecDef Gates had said a week before, you first take out the target country's air defenses.
An act of war? Yes, I think that qualifies. Rep. Hunter must think otherwise.
If you still think Hunter and 0bama are right, you would not want to read the comments that follow his op-ed on the San Diego Union-Tribune's web site. They're more vicious than anything posted here.
I'm waiting on a reply from newzjunkey.
We are just being good sports. What fun is there in beating the crap out of a bunch of weaklings? We need to give our enemies a fighting chance to kill us hence Hillary is over in London promising to arm the “rebels”.
Your points are well taken but will be lost on the American people who not only do not understand the Constitution but do not CARE. Only a few of us whackjobs even have a clue.
Another huge problem unaddressed by the Treason Media is how is this legal even under the NATO charter? Since no NATO member was attacked by Daffy what gives the organization the authority to do anything against him? NATO forces are in Afghanistan because the US was attacked. It is illegal from a national and international perspective. Obama is now a WAR CRIMINAL.
The United States is filled with AINOs. Americans In Name Only who only ask “what can my country do for ME?”
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.