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.
When will it ever end?
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.
When one group of anti-American muslims wants to engage in civil war with another group of anti-American muslims the best thing that we could do is to make sure that both sides are well armed and then get out of the way.
I noticed Mr. Hunter does not address the issue of what Mr. Obama could POSSIBLY have meant when he said:
“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,”
-— Barack Hussein Obama, December 20, 2007
I sent the below letter to the paper today.
To: San Diego Union Tribune Letters (sosdnews@uniontrib.com)
Subject: Obama’s Libyan Actions Required Congressional Debate
Concerning national security Alexander Hamilton said, “Because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies….no constitutional shackles can be wisely imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed. Since Libya poses no national exigency (emergency), Obama cannot espouse that statement for war.
Next as criteria for war come natural rights where Thomas Jefferson writes, “all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Eleanor Roosevelt defines our U.N. commitment to collective security by writing that equal and inalienable rights for the human family encompass rights to life, liberty and security of person. John Kennedy reinforced this commitment saying, “We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” Finally, Ronald Reagan said we cannot escape destiny as the last best hope of afflicted mankind.
However, Barack Obama cannot claim natural rights as criteria for Libyan action, because he considered preventing genocide inconsistent reasoning for maintaining troops in Iraq; pointing out our un-involvement in the Congo and Darfur.
This leaves John Kerry’s international test making the U.S. subservient to worldwide conscience. Under that criteria Libya becomes more equal than the Congo, Sudan, Rwanda, and Uganda. Uninterrupted European access to natural resources seems the paramount reasoning, with humanitarian protection purely random.
Such reasoning required that Congressional debate accompany Obama’s leisurely deliberations.
P.S.
White House Hopeful Barack Obama Says Preventing Genocide Isn’t Reason to Keep U.S. Troops in Iraq
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290073,00.html
Obama: Don’t stay in Iraq over genocide
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19862711/ns/politics-decision_08/
Ha ha. Hussein has to have DH defend him. How humiliating!
Not a tough choice, considering what we're discovering about the elements of the anti-government factions.
So, I disagree. Circle gets the square.
Is Duncan Hunter now a RINO?
Your comments would be welcomed!
Note how Liberals/Progressives are forgiven for not following their own statements of principal. Whereas Republicans are excoriated.
How can President 0bama be said to act correctly when he barely acted at all? He high-tailed it out of the country and has said more on his NCAA basketball picks than he has on Libya.
Another one to cross off the list.
“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.”
I go back and forth on this. Either we are the dumbest bastrds on earth or we are so far under the spell of the MSM that we have just given up. Either way, if Americans think this is a good thing, any of us, we’re screwed.
I especially like the plans to arm these “freedom fighters” and train them. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Or suicidal? I can’t decide which.
So when rebel elements are “outnumbered and outmatched” we’re there to pick up the slack? Like in Tienamin Square?
Fair and blanaced. We should bomb both sides.
Not mentioned is AL-QAEDA’S involvement in the Libyan rebellion.
Have you read any of the reader comments that follow Rep. Hunter's op-ed? You'll be in good company I believe.
He is completely wrong. How is any humanitarian crisis in Libya more urgent than Sudan? How about the Slaughter of opposition in Iran? Bahrain? Egypt?
This is a way the dog moment for Obama and meant to bail out his arse and Europe’s.
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.