Two comments on Libya: First, the House of Representatives has, in effect, split the difference on Libya:
“The House of Representatives refused to either endorse or curtail U.S. involvement in Libya, delivering a mixed message Friday that put deep divisions surrounding the issue on full display.
By an overwhelming margin [295-123], lawmakers refused to sanction U.S. participation in a NATO campaign of air strikes in the North African country, a vote that amounted to a rare, bipartisan rebuke of a president's foreign policy during an active military conflict.
Minutes later, however, a Republican-led effort to try to curb financial support for U.S. involvement also failed [238-180]. A majority of Democrats and a group of Republicans rejected the bill to cut funding for combat activities – surprising GOP leaders, who tailored the bill at last minute to suit the rank-and-file.
Both measures were largely symbolic. The first measure, which would have given authorization to U.S. involvement, was not expected to pass the Republican-led House ….
The second bill, to cut off funding, had virtually no chance of passing the Senate, much less garnering a presidential signature.”
This is probably an acceptable result. Regardless of how inept the Obama Administration has been in explaining what we are doing in Libya and why we are there, and regardless of the fact that they felt they needed UN Security Council approval but not US Congress approval, I do not favor cutting off funding for the military activities. It is the Obama administration that messed up here, not our military and not our country. Even though the Administration says we are not engaged in “hostilities,” I think we are, and I would not cut off funding in that situation.
However, something needed to be so that presidents understand the proper limits on their actions. Regardless of whether the War Powers Resolution is constitutional or not, presidents need to consult Congress and explain to the American people what they are doing – and why – before they send our troops into situations like Libya, or as soon thereafter as reasonably possible. The Administration did not do this.
I realize that the failure of the House to authorize the Libya operation might make the U.S. look a little bad, but the Obama administration has to bear at least some responsibility for this vote. If they are going to largely ignore Congress and, more importantly, the American people, they should expect something like this to happen.
Second, in his address last Wednesday evening, President Obama said this about Libya:
“When innocents are being slaughtered and global security endangered, we don't have to choose between standing idly by or acting on our own. Instead, we must rally international action, which we're doing in Libya, where we do not have a single soldier on the ground, but are supporting allies in protecting the Libyan people and giving them the chance to determine their own destiny.”
A couple of things: One, global security was not endangered by what was happening in Libya. Civil war in Libya is bad for Libyans, but it is not endangering global security.
Two, I really don’t understand how the Libyan operation is going to succeed any time soon. Maybe Colonel Gaddafi will give up. I hope so – because the NATO forces seem to be having a lot of problems getting the job done. Part of the problem, obviously, is that the policy goal is to get Colonel Gaddafi out, but the legal remit is just to protect civilians. It is hard to accomplish the former when you are only supposed to do the latter.
But even without that complication, NATO is having problems. As Defense Secretary Gates said:
“The mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country. Yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the US, once more, to make up the difference.”
According to The Economist:
“The British naval chief says that, if the war drags on beyond the autumn, he will have to take ‘challenging decisions’ about how to deploy his ships. His French counterpart complains that if his only carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, remains off Libya for the rest of the year it will have to be out of service for maintenance throughout 2012. Norway, one of the few stalwarts ready to bomb Colonel Qaddafi’s forces, says its small air force can no longer cope: it will cut back operations now, and cease them altogether on August 1st.”
If this is what President Obama considers a success, then .... Let’s not go there. Libya may still turn out the way we want it to, but it will be a success only in result, not in the way it was handled. And it should not be held out as an example of how to do things in the future.
Comments