Radtke: Opposes Libyan War, Asks for Congressional Authorization
By Shaun Kenney | Monday, March 21st, 2011 | PoliticsIn a statement, candidate Jamie Radtke denounced the attacks on Libya while simultaneously announcing her support for the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq:
I am disturbed that the President seemed more concerned about a U.N. vote than Congressional authorization. The United States Congress must hold an immediate vote on a declaration of war on Libya.
I support the war in Afghanistan, which was in response to the terrorist attack on U.S. soil that killed thousands of Americans, and the war in Iraq, which was intended to stop a WMD program that we and nearly all other nations believed that Saddam Hussein was undertaking. While I would have preferred declarations of war, Congress did at least pass resolutions for the use of military force in both wars.
In Libya, however, the United States is facing no imminent national security threat, yet we are doing most of the heavy lifting, and we have no Congressional authorization for the use of military force.
Radtke also questions the objectives in the Libyan War, with air power being insufficient to either remove or deter Qaddafi, and further questions as to whether or not the intervention in Libya is truly humanitarian in nature:
And if humanitarian reasons are our chief reason for intervention, as Obama has stated it is, what of the many other civil wars and slaughter of civilians that are occurring around the world every day? Why Libya and not the Ivory Coast or Sudan or Congo?
You may read the entire statement here.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Shaun Kenney is the Chairman of the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors, former Communications Director for the Republican Party of Virginia, and an active blogger since 2002. Shaun lives in Thomas Jefferson's backyard with his wife, six children, and a modest attempt at a farm in Kents Store, Virginia.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
68 Responses to "Radtke: Opposes Libyan War, Asks for Congressional Authorization"
So much for politics ending at the water’s edge.
Pointing out that critics of Bush and the Republicans are largely silent on the President’s use of force here is one thing. Condemning the President for actually doing the right thing for a change doesn’t make a lot of sense.
But hey, at least she’s not attacking Republicans with this one. Thank heaven for little miracles.
This woman is in way over her head.I hope she doesn’t take the Tea Party off a cliff.
Gosh, I must be naive. I thought Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Kuwait, and now Libya was all about oil.
Red Baron,
That was sarcasm, right?
[...] E-Mail This Post [...]
It looks like Hillary did a drive-by on Sec. Def Gates and ganged up with Susan Rice, Samantha Power as a “mommy” tag team to goad Obama into pushing the button on the Libyan civil war. And those evil, imperialistic and colonial Neocons weren’t even in the room this time. I wonder if Obama was wearing his Nobel Peace Prize medal when he signed the order to attack.
I’m pretty sure Radtke is molding her positions to fit the Tea Party model. Her inconsistency on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is further evidence of this, albeit she is right about the congressional declarations.
I have to wonder about the inspiration behind her point on humanitarian intent: http://twitter.com/frashure/status/48611183820935168
She is not right about the Congressional declarations. The President may, under the War Powers Act, send forces into combat so long as he notifies Congress within 48 hours. Absent Congressional authorization, he has sixty days before he has to withdraw the forces.
And that’s assuming the War Powers Act is constitutional, which I don’t believe it is.
Regardless, Obama did the right thing here, even if the left is hypocritical for not criticizing him for it like theynwould have a Republican.
I just thought maybe there was a connection to the UK with Libya being a major European oil supplier.
This new Front (war) for the United States reminds me of another republic which succumbed.
1. Family life disintegrated.
2. Traditional ethical systems were ignored or discarded.
3. Entertainment became perverse and immoral.
4. The cost of maintaining the military machine became huge.
5. The republic’s economy collapsed.
The five major reasons for the collapse of the Roman Empire suggested by Edward Gibbons in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
It appears we have an adequate checklist with which to compare ourselves.
Well, at least she’s not going with the “Tomahawk missiles cost X million; that’s X billion we could put towards the deficit!” argument…
Yours is a truly remarkable statement: you believe the war powers act is unconstitutional, and yet you state that Radtke is wrong because she thinks the president can’t commit an act of war without congressional approval, which he can only do because of the war powers act. And then you say Obama did the right thing here, apparently in spite of your belief that he had no constitutional authority to do it. Absolutely classic neocon position: “screw the rule of law, we’re going to do what we want because we’re right and we’re sure of it.” Did I miss something?
“She is not right about the Congressional declarations. The President may, under the War Powers Act, send forces into combat so long as he notifies Congress within 48 hours. Absent Congressional authorization, he has sixty days before he has to withdraw the forces.
And that’s assuming the War Powers Act is constitutional, which I don’t believe it is.
Regardless, Obama did the right thing here, even if the left is hypocritical for not criticizing him for it like theynwould have a Republican.
Why is she supporting the Afghan and Iraq wars, since there was no formal congressional “declaration of war’ in either case? There was an authorization of the president’s use of force which, as Brian points out, isn’t the same thing. The last country the U.S. actually declared war on was Nazi Germany. I seem to recall that Reagan, who Ms. Radke I’m sure supported, bombed Libya without a declaration of war.
Yes, Jamie, you missed something. As Commander in Chief, the President has constitutional authority to commit the forces of the United States to battle without Congressional approval. That is what being Commander in Chief is all about. That’s the point of including that power in Article II. That power has been exercised many, many times, including by President Reagan when he bombed Libya thirty years ago.
Brian, hold on a sec.. did I read that right? You don’t believe the president has the authority to take us to war, but you are glad he did?
We are not talking about some impending action against the united states.. in fact some may argue it could inspire new actions against us in the region. If we were talking about some intelligence about a future attack on our soil I could see him taking immediate action, and then speaking to congress, but you would like the office of the presidency to have as much power as it wants in policing the actions of other nations?
There was another guy in history who held a similar opinion and his name was (Insert Tyrant Name Here).
No, you guys did not read that right. Read what I just wrote concerning Article II.
Too many people confuse a declaration of war with the use of military force as authorized by the commander-in-chief. They are not the same thing under either international law or our Constitution. That is why we routinely use military force in a variety of missions, such as fighting Somalian pirates as just one example, without a declaration of war or even a Congressional resolution.
Consultation with the Congress is always the best course of action for any commander-in-chief, but despite what Jamie Radtke thinks, there is no legal requirement for it. It might interest her to know that as long ago as 1801 President Thomas Jefferson conducted military operations against what is now Libya with no Congressional authorization. That is where the phrase, “to the shores of Tripoli” came from in the Marine Corps anthem.
In addition to flaws/errors noted by Shaun and others, UNSCRs 1970 &1973 on Libya set down specific terms that, once met, declare any further military action (by either Gaddafi or coalition forces) to be a violation of international law. President Obama was explicitly clear his intentions don’t include going beyond those defined goals and terms, ergo there will be no protracted 3rd war and there ARE defined goals.
That Radtke considers her statement to be cohesive, well informed, or believable by the majority is, well … let’s just call it another data point, useful as voters judge her competency and readiness to serve in the U.S. Senate.
After reading the Radtke statement several times, I still have not found the word “unconstitutional” in it anywhere.
You can criticize her for opposing the no-fly-zone (although I don’t; arming the rebels would have been a better option for a number of reasons), but the verbaige Shaun cited focuses on political reasons, not constitutional ones.
Shaun, did she mention the Constitution as a barrier to the president’s actions elsewhere in her statement?
DJ, why stress that Congress needs to act if you think what the President has done isn’t an extraconstitutional (or unconstitutional if you like to throw the phrase around, which I don’t) use of power?
The clear implication of what she’s saying is that the President has overstepped his authority.
@Wally –
The only problem with that? Gibbon ignores (maligns is probably a better word) the history of the Eastern Roman Empire… plus he had an intense dislike of Christianity, pointing to its rise as one of the primary causes of the Roman Empire’s fall.
One could easily attribute any of those five causes (in all or in part) as the reasons for the collapse of any civilization… Gibbon was no visionary in that regard. Only points 4 and 5 could be attributed to the fall of the British Empire, and point 4 to the Soviet Empire.
In short, while fascinating to compare, the fall of the Roman Republic and its transition to Empire had more to do with the “lack of republican virtue” as Cicero described it, and less with the perverse entertainment of the time, which the emperors found to be most helpful in maintaining the Roman mob, etc.
Just a historical point, nothing more. Thanks for introducing it!
Jefferson’s use of the Navy against pirates might be seen as justified in defense of American-flagged shipping. Flagged ships are considered national territory, IIRC. In spite of that, Jefferson’s having done it doesn’t make it right, does it?
Brian,
Two questions here: justification, and authority.
Our attack on Libya is justified by what, exactly? Is it merely allowed by precedent? Once you cross this philosophical line, then there is no limit to what the president can do and you have instituted an imperial presidency. Now, the arguments merely revolve around who is in the White House, because that alone determines who is on the receiving end of American power. Which is the point of at least one article here at BD: why isn’t code pink complaining about American action in Libya? Which is sort of code for: “We’re OK with killing people who pose no threat to us, but we think the left is intellectually dishonest.”
Brian, your position is a stretch, but a very common one. If the president can order troops into battle without Congressional approval, then why was the power to declare war reserved to Congress? Your position makes this Constitutional restriction meaningless, and ultimately makes it possible for the President to invade any country he wants, just because he wants. Washington has already shown us how little they care for public opinion.
At some point then, in the life of a republic, all laws become meaningless because all have been rendered nugatory by some precedent. Have we evolved from a nation of laws into an “anything goes” banana republic? You can see this attitude on Wall Street, in Washington DC, and even on Main Street where nothing seems to matter anymore. It’s all about what can be gotten away with.
Congress shall have the power to declare war.
Jefferson sent ships to deal with Barbary Pirates without Congressional approval. Precedent established, Constitution sidestepped from here on.
Is this what you want?
DJ – I also would have preferred arming the rebels, but I believe such action would be deemed an illegal act under section 9 (Arms embargo) of UNSCR 1970, adopted on Feb 26th, and the international community would have blasted the U.S. for breaking international law.
@Shaun
You’re right on, and I agree 100% with your position on Gibbons. I just thought I would bring up the five positions to hone in on positions 4 and 5 as they may possible relate to our republic. All things being equal, the U.S. is expending mass amounts of military funds and foreign aid in a teetering economic market, to assure resources for “allies”, when 70% of our needed resource is supplied by our northern neighbor.
Jamie, my position isn’t a stretch – it’s settled law. The President has the authority under Article II to order troops into combat operations. It’s inherent in his power as Commander in Chief.
Article I reserves to Congress the right to declare war – not make war. The original clause as drafted read “make war” but it was amended into “declare war” specifically to ensure that the President had the ability to repel invasions or attacks without waiting for Congressional authority. Congress retains the right to defund the military through its spending clause, and it has the power to regulate the Army and Navy and authorize them. Those powers can be used to check a rogue executive. Declaring that a war exists creates envokes a variety of different laws that do not come into effect absent a declaration. That’s why Congress was given that authority.
Nearly every President who has had the unfortunate need to send US troops into battle has done so without a Congressional declaration of war. There have been only four instances where a declaration of war was made before hostilities had actually begun, and only five total declarations – 1812, Mexico, Spain, World War I and II. That’s it. All of the other conflicts, from the Whiskey Rebellion, the Indian Wars, the Civil War, Pancho Villa, Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Iraq (both times), etc. none have had accompanying declarations of war. But most of have had some kind of active Congressional approval. And those that haven’t even had that, like Reagan’s attacks on Libya and Clinton’s air strikes against Al Qaeda, were still legal.
The precedent here doesn’t contradict the Constitution, it explains it and puts what it says into practice.
@Wally –
Could not agree more. Our only compelling interest in Libya is that the European Union and the United Nations *compelled* us to go to war on their behalf.
At this stage of the game, you just kinda hope for the best, support the troops, and pray for a quick conclusion of hostilities in war #3…
@Shaun:
Amen.
Let’s see.. the Korean War started out as a “police action” under the United Nations which escalated into a War under a Presidential declaration;
“Operation Blue Bat” in 1958 was a Presidential response to a civil war in Lebanon;
“Operation Power Pack” in 1965 where our President committed over 23,000 soldiers in the Dominican Republic to prevent the overthrow of a ruling junta;
Vietnam War after that “Gulf of Tonkin” incident which started out as another “police action” and escalated under several presidents and resulted in over 56,000 US soldiers killed;
“Operation Eagle Claw” where Jimmy Carter had a fiasco trying to rescue our hostages in Iran;
“Operation Urgent Fury”, Grenada 1983 where President Reagan invaded and seized the island;
“MNF” Beirut in 1983 where we took on another UN intervention in a civil war in Lebanon where we lost 241 Marines and the French lost 58 in suicide bombings of their barracks;
“Operation Just Cause” in 1989 where we invaded Panama and forced “regime change” on Manuel Noriega;
“Operation Desert Fox” a “no fly zone” in Iraq;
“Operation Desert Storm” the Persian Gulf War in 1991 where we invaded Kuwait and then Iraq;
“Operation Restore Hope” in 1992, where our President committed us to a UN debacle to capture a warlord which ended in disaster for our troops;
“Operation Joint Endeavor” where the US in the guise of NATO and invaded Bosnia and Herzegovina;
“Operation Enduring Freedom in 2001 where we invaded Afghanistan;
“Operation Enduring Freedom – Philippines” where we used the same campaign name with hyphens to cover US Special Forces actions against some terrorists and communists;
“Operation Iraqi Freedom” in 2003 where we Invaded Iraq again;
“Operation Secure Tomorrow” in 2004 , 1,000 Marines in Haiti; and now
“Operation Odyssey Dawn” in another attempt at regime change using military force under the guise of the UN.
In all cases and a host of others, a President initiated the “Operation” with a Presidential Order, war was never declared by Congress and in many cases Congress wasn’t consulted, many billions of US dollars were appropriated by Congresses after the fact in most cases, and we lost many brave souls engaged in fighting whom the President considered at that time as bad guys. Any Constitutional or legal basis to challenge these actions by a President as the Commander in Chief went by the wayside before the ink was dry on our Constitution.
These days, a declaration of “War” would be a political stunt where Congress can vote “present” or share and divert blame in a series of sound bites for the next election.
Brian, let me get this straight: The Founders delegated the power to declare war purely for cosmetic purposes?
Brian S,
If more Republicans were like you, I’d vote Republican more often. I take it that you are not a member of the Tea Party, correct?
so if Jamie Radtke were our US Senator now, she would be on TV with Dennis Kucinich complaining about the constitutionality of this action in Libya?
has our Commonwealth sunk to that level?
Article I reserves to Congress the right to declare war – not make war. The original clause as drafted read “make war” but it was amended into “declare war” specifically to ensure that the President had the ability to repel invasions or attacks without waiting for Congressional authority.
I don’t need a lesson on Constitutional history:
Mr. Madison and Mr Gerry moved to insert “declare,” striking out “make” war; leaving to the executive the power to repel sudden attacks.
Mr. Sharman thought it stood very well. The executive should be able to repel and not to commence war.
Mr. Gerry never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the executive alone to declare war.
Mr. Mason was against giving the power of war to the executive, because not safely to be trusted with it; [SMART MAN] or to the Senate, because not so constructed to be entitled to it. He was for clogging rather than facilitating war; but for facilitating peace. He preferred “declare” to “make.”
So tell me again or, rather, for the first time; the president’s attack on Libya is justified by what, exactly? The intent of the Framers is now clear to all here who can read. What invasion is he repelling?
“Doctrine of prevention” addicts: for extra credit, describe the Libyan threat to U.S. sovereignty.
Declaring that a war exists creates envokes a variety of different laws that do not come into effect absent a declaration. That’s why Congress was given that authority.
Would you care to enlighten me which laws that coexisted with, or were bought into effect soon after, the writing and ratification of the Constitution that support your contention?
So the point is, as I stated in my further above post, it’s all about precedent, what Brian calls “settled law,” but which has really been a gradual diminution of the actual authority bestowed upon the Constitution and its clear intended meanings. The Framers clearly intended the Executive to not be able to initiate war, but only to be able repel sudden invasions. No problem, Brian says, he’s commander in chief and he can do whatever he wants, even plunging us into wars that Congress then has no option but to fund, the downside of losing a war we started being too severe.
Chris, no, it wasn’t for cosmetic purposes. They wrote it the way they wrote it – vaguely – in an effort to provide balance – that’s the genius of the founder’s system. They balanced everything. No one branch or individual has control over war making, or any other power that could be or had been abused. The term “declare war” is vague, and it was designed to be vague as many of the provisions of the Constitution are and were designed to be.
That’s where Jamie gets it wrong. I know you don’t think you need the history lesson, Jamie, but if you think anything is “clear” in the Constitution, you aren’t recognizing the inherent ambiguities that make it so extraordinary. The Framers intentionally left large gaps in the Constitution and didn’t define ambiguous terms in order to allow the three branches to work that out for themselves. They didn’t want to tie the hands of the government for the future and they did a great job. The war powers clauses are a perfect example of that “Declare war” is vague. What does it actually mean? Does it mean make war? Obviously not, because they specifically amended it to not read make war. Does it mean acknowledging that a state of war exists? If so, why declare one before hostilities have begun, like we did in World War I? Does it mean actively prosecuting a war? If so, why make the President the Commander in Chief if he can’t order the troops to fight without Congressional approval? It’s designed to be ambiguous for exactly the reason we see now – it allows the President latitude to take actions consistent with protection American national security without having to inject politics into that decision making process.
How the clauses were read and acted upon by Washington, Adams, Jefferson and the early presidents is evidence enough of how the war powers clause was treated. Washington didn’t get Congressional approval to head to Pennsylvania with the Regular Army to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. He acted as Commander in Chief and called up the militia (pursuant to authority granted to him in the Militia Act).
On a side note, saying that the Framers had a singular intent that we can divine by reading the debate records tells me either you didn’t read the debates or you’re trying to cherry pick your facts to fit your argument. There is no unitary “intent of the founders” – they all disagreed, some vehemently, about what things said, meant, or were intended to do in the document. Just look over what you quoted there. You have four founders – include Mason who didn’t like the end product of the Constitution so much that he refused to sign it – saying similar things, but nothing from the other 40 or so who would have been privy to that debate. How can we know what they were thinking? We can’t. We have to go by what’s in the document itself, and that language is ambiguous.
The idea that Congress wouldn’t act to end a war if they viewed it as illegitimate ignores the fact that Congress has actually done it – active combat action in Vietnam ended when Congress pulled the plug on American military involvement with the Case-Church Amendment – and that was after the Tonkin Gulf Resolution was repealed. The Neutrality Acts kept us out of World War II despite Roosevelt’s desire to assist the British and French, until Pearl Harbor ended Congress’s isolationist streak.
What’s the justification for the attacks in Libya? We have vital national interests in that region. First, the area is close to our allies and a civil war there is dangerous to regional stability. Second, we are supporting a democratic uprising against a dictator. Supporting democracies around the world has been a core tenet of American foreign policy since Wilson (and arguably before). We don’t need to be repelling an invasion to be taking actions designed to protect vital American interests abroad. That’s what happened here, and that’s fine.
LD, no, apparently I (like Shaun Kenney) am a dyed-in-the-wool member of the Republican establishment. At least, according to the more vocal Tea Party guys.
I am baffled as to why so many people are okay with a President authorizing an attack on another nation, without our elected representatives voting for it. There was no imminent threat to us. The reason given was to protect the people from a brutal dictator. If that is the criteria, we should go ahead and attack Iran and one or two African and/or Asian countries every year.
Aren’t we doing something wrong if a democratic republic is continually invovled in warfare?
Jerry, no – we are not doing anything wrong. We are protecting our interests. Sometimes that requires force.
BS,
It’s not the Republican Establishment that the vocal Tea Party has a problem with…it’s the dismissal of the Tea Party of having a legitimate view. But if we look at the past of these individuals, a history of dismissal is probably not limited to just the Tea Party.
Actually, our values (whoever wishes to claim them as their own) are aligned. It’s just SOME Republican Establishment feel our arguments are without merit.
@LittleDavid,
Is your vision so clouded to not being associated with the Tea Party? Be careful, because your usefulness may become unnecessary. Eventually, the Muslims who believe in Sharia will have no need for gays but the ends justify the means.
Brian,
I find your version of deliberate ambiguity to be very self-serving. In you mind, Michael Kammen is right: the Constitution is a living document and can be moulded to mean whatever we “need” it to mean. In other words, it doesn’t really mean anything. Most people on the left agree with you about that, and I will cite our discussion as more evidence that there is no substantive difference between R’s (at least the neocons) and D’s; both are willing to do whatever it takes to achieve their worldview, rules be damned.
Your position also lends itself very well to the ongoing establishment of policy-through-precedent, which I explained earlier. Are you an attorney?
active combat action in Vietnam ended when Congress pulled the plug
And, as you know, America’s stature in the world dropped dramatically immediately afterwards. I seem to recall this example has been often cited as the reason why Congress now always goes along with presidentially-initiated wars. Precedent, after all, trumps everything, right?
Your willingness to cite “national interests” as a legitimate reason to start killing people who pose no immediate threat to us is virtually the same notion as Congress’s broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause: all we have to do is issue a finding that some activity impacts interstate commerce, even the Roosevelt era’s now-famous finding that a farmer growing grain and keeping it for himself was engaging in interstate commerce because he subsequently didn’t need to buy any grain, and we can regulate anything we want. This kind of “vision” cuts both ways; e.g., Obamacare.
Are there any limits to what the federal government can do?
Can we invade Iran? Certainly, Iran is more of a threat to our “national interests” than Libya is. It has a growing but brutally suppressed “democracy” movement (BTW, your acceptance of Libyan resistance as “pro-democracy” is incredibly naive).
Revolutionary Iran is a creation of the United States, is it not? Should we revisit the history of Iran, how the Shah came to power, his behaviour towards his own people that we supported because of “vital national interests?”
What’s the mission in Libya? Once Qaddafi is deposed, what exactly happens next? Does a new, happy democracy spring up from whole cloth? How long does it take to establish this? For extra credit, describe the democratic tradition’s deep roots among the Libyan people. Explain how the people there yearn for expressing their political will through the electoral process.
When the old suppressed tribal factions start killing each other, who intervenes then? Do we send in troops and occupy the place? Will they “welcome us as liberators?” What’s the exit plan? What does the end game look like? Did you think about any of this?
I think you have 2 camps here. Case Law and Plain Language. The Constitution was written in a simple easy to read format. Not as some who have gone to law school would have you believe. “Shall not be infringed” was easy to understand in it’s day. It wasn’t till lawyers got involved, and the collective got together, that they decided guns were bad that they try to make it say something else.
Any vague language you might see in the constitution (in your opinion) If you believe that the President has absolute power to “make war” then there is no limit. He could “make war” against his own citizens under your interpretation.
I’m fairly certain that the founders would walk into the oval office and lay Obama out for even 10% of what he has done. Most of congress too for that matter.
Here is some more Plain Language for you:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Seems simple and easy to understand to me. However, most lawyers would look down on us lowly serfs like a priest at mass after speaking Latin and say “isn’t it sad that you are not as smart as me?”
@Brian S.
“We are protecting our interests . . . ”
Libya – What interests?
As a decorated Vietnam veteran, we were called “peace keepers” and despised. Today, I would be called a warrior and praised. Interesting how effective framing can sway public opinion while the same war powers act has been used to “protect our interests” in the same context over and over again.
Jamie, I’m not supporting the “living constitution” theory. What I am saying is that the document is ambiguous, which gives Congress, the Executive and the Courts the ability to fill in those gaps. I am not an attorney right now. I will be in six months, assuming I pass the bar.
Precedent does matter. It’s the basis of the anglo-American legal system that we have that pre-dates the founding of the country, the Articles and the Constitution. Acting like it doesn’t matter simply because you don’t care for having established law contradict how you read the Constitution is a bad tactic.
The Constitution is ambiguous. It is not self-defining. Even the strictest of strict constructionists recognize that. You are giving it your own interpretation, even if you claim to simply be adhering to what you believe is “clear.”
Yes, there are plenty of limits as to what the federal government can do. I’ve written about those extensively, especially the health care mandates.
Can we invade Iran? Sure. Should we invade Iran? No. We can invade pretty much anywhere we want. We have the capability. Whether our interests are vital enough and the costs acceptable enough to justify intervention is a policy question, and we haven’t reached that point yet with Iran.
We’re not invading Libya, deposing Qaddaffi and rebuilding the country. These no fly zones are simply assistance to the rebels on the ground so they aren’t massacred by Qaddaffi’s government. That’s the limit of our support. We don’t need end games or ground strategies or anything else because our objectives are limited – keep Qaddaffi’s air forces from killing rebels. That’s it.
Kurt, the 10th amendment is anything but clear. The list of powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution is not fully defined – the Constitution provides express powers and express prohibitions, but it also allows for implied powers through the necessary and proper clause. Not everything that is a valid exercise of constitutional power is written down in a clause in the document.
I like the 10th amendment but it doesn’t get us where we need to be. It doesn’t answer the question of what powers are granted by the Constitution, mainly because the Constitution itself doesn’t answer that question in its entirety. The founders envisioned Congress, the Executive and the Judiciary filling in the gaps. And that’s what happens now.
These things are not as easy as you all want them to be. Sorry.
Omnia dicta fortiora si dicta Latina.
Aside to Mr. Erb: My Dad was USAF SNCO in that war. I’m old enough to recall young soldiers advised to remove uniforms and don civvies for return trips home. Unfortunately, the short hair was a dead giveaway and plenty of anti-war protesters gathered to meet (and spit on) our returning soldiers.
IMO, this newer “disagree with the policy but support the troops” attitude clearly stems from decades-old collective guilt over America’s treatment of returning Vietnam Vets. Consequently, the ‘warrior’ label applies to YOUR generation of soldiers – first and foremost. What you guys went through assures that America’s younger soldiers now receive a hero’s welcome. Again, many thanks and may God bless you!
These no fly zones are simply assistance to the rebels on the ground so they aren’t massacred by Qaddaffi’s government. That’s the limit of our support. We don’t need end games or ground strategies or anything else because our objectives are limited – keep Qaddaffi’s air forces from killing rebels. That’s it.
“No Fly Zone” Do you really believe that? You might be the only one who does:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-22/allies-control-of-airspace-in-libya-puts-qaddafi-s-ground-forces-at-risk.html
“Obama and other alliance leaders, including U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, have declared that their political objective is to force Qaddafi from power after more than four decades.”
Looks like regime change is the goal. That means, all the questions I asked you above are pertinent. Got any answers?
Missing from this discussion is what is the influence of treaties, international agreements, and the legal foundational justification for the UNSCR? The UNSC based resolutions 1970 & 1973 on the RtoP principle, agreed to by member states (including the US) at the 2005 World Summit. “Responsibility to Protect” authorizes (and one could read as mandates) the international community to act (with force) under certain and specific events/conditions.
Operation Odyssey Dawn is not technically a war. It is extremely limited in scope and, should the US go beyond the very clear humanitarian mission (stop the slaughter and protect civilian citizens), we will likely be charged w/ breaking international law.
On this action US interests are intertwined with western allies interests; an erratic Middle East/ North Africa threatens US and European oil supplies & prices –the lifeblood of 1st world and developing market economies. And if inside Libya isn’t bad enough, large-scale refugee flows from Libya (and Ivory Coast) are now causing further instability in several neighboring countries (which are also extremely volatile!). There is a firestorm in the region and events are moving too fast for international policy makers. This is a complex, multilayered, multiregional, and likely critical world moment – a situation more nuanced and thorny than constitutional law questions will answer (albeit very interesting ~ Thanks Brian S!) or Radtke’s simplistic statement acknowledges.
Jaime, pardon the interruption into your discussion with Brian S. … but here President Obama simply tripped up in his own rhetoric and made a fast attempt to clarify (back peddle) yesterday. You will likely not hear him utter “Gaddafi must go” again.
Since the bombing campaign is under UN sanctioned authority (and limited to humanitarian goals), it is illegal to target or openly move to depose Gaddafi. IF, however, he ‘happens to be killed’ during the humanitarian mission – well, we can all say “BIG Oops!” and go home.
“The President of the United states is to be “commander-in-chief” of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States.” When Hamilton quoted this in Federalist 74, he placed emphasis on “when called into the actual service,” a clear reference to Congress’ power to declare war.
In comparing the powers of the executive with that of the King, Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 69 that “The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor…The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies,-all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.”
Again, all Hamilton’s emphasis. That’s a clear distinction of the power to declare war by the King, and the lack of it in the office of the President.
Oops. That last italic was supposed to end at “regulating.”
I find the President’s statements to be compelling and accurate. That is, it is in the interest of the coalition to provide humanitarian assistance to citizens on the ground and to use the no fly zone to prevent the Dictator from the massacre of his own people. The U.S. had the initial role in the attack, but now will fulfill a support role. Our national interest is that Gaddifi should be replaced and regime change should occur, but it is likely that will be the result of diplomatic and financial pressures on Gaddify.
“Operation Odyssey Dawn is not technically a war.” “Since the bombing campaign is under UN sanctioned authority (and limited to humanitarian goals),”
Forgive me, I have to be blunt: Orwell would be proud.
http://www.sysdesign.ca/archive/berkes_1984_language.html
The Party is interested in masking the truth, and so the media manipulates language to present a distorted reality. As Orwell says in his essay Politics and the English Language, “Political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind”
Chris, what does “in the actual service of the United States” mean? Keep in mind that Hamilton was writing in an era where the Regular Army was a miniscule part of the armed forces and the militia was the primary means of manpower. Today, we have large standing armies that exist around the clock and we aren’t beholden to call up of the state militias in order to take military action.
Things have changed in how wars are fought and the concerns the founders had with standing armies. Going by Hamilton’s statement in the Federalist is potentially misleading.
Jaime, Orwell was a FICTION writer, and a very fine one at that. If you consider him a prognosticator, well, forgive my bluntness … that’s just bat@#$% crazy wrong.
Jay,
Sorry, friend, the work I cite is a non-fiction essay by Orwell. I cite it as an illustration of the ease with which you intermixed “humanitarian” and “bombing.”
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/decline/orwell1.htm
Jaime, read the bio of the guy that put together this collection of philosophical goo and you’ll understand why I say – again – just bat@#$% crazy wrong.
Phillip Atkinson is clear proof “the nut doesn’t fall very far from the tree”.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/author.htm
Jae,
Argue the point, or discredit the source?
@Jaime ~ Happy to debate the point, which is … uh, what is your point?
If discussion of the foundational international documents & agreements that preceded (and supported) President Obama’s decision to authorize military force is irrelevant or not interesting to you … fine. I get that.
However, WHY you referred me to a fiction writer’s rambling work of non-fiction buried in a collection of anti-social essays compiled by a self-indulgent, delusional, never recovered from childhood cool-kid rejection, self-described “social outcast raised by a Socialist fan of George Orwell” … and WHERE you expect me to go from there (Ayn Rand maybe?) is, I confess, a complete and total Twilight Zone mystery.
Jai,
This is wonderful; you really don’t get it, do you? “However, WHY you referred me to a fiction writer’s rambling work of non-fiction buried in a collection of anti-social essays compiled by a self-indulgent, delusional, never recovered from childhood cool-kid rejection, self-described “social outcast raised by a Socialist fan of George Orwell” … and WHERE you expect me to go from there (Ayn Rand maybe?) is, I confess, a complete and total Twilight Zone mystery.”
You fail to see how “Orwellian” it is for you to casually refer to a bombing as “humanitarian.” To many, that would indicate the astuteness of Orwell’s observation that the purpose of “political language…is to make murder respectable.” We are killing Libyans who pose no threat to us; that’s murder, isn’t it? You refer to it as a “humanitarian” effort, clearly indicating your respect for the activity. I provided you a link to the quote, and you still don’t get it, proving that political hacks are so deeply immersed in said “political speech” that, to them, murder is respectable.
By the way, boys: WTI is over $105 a barrel as I write this. It is well known among the well-informed that each $1 increase in WTI takes about $100 Billion out of the U.S. economy. By my reading, WTI jumped about $4 the day the Humanitarian No-Fly Zone was announced, and has continued up since then. Wholesale gasoline is about $3.03, which translates into about $3.50 at the pump. Congratulations. Time for another stimulus, eh?
Jaime, if Orwell is your guiding social philosopher – I totally get it. I, OTOH, consider 1984 and Animal Farm interesting works of fiction and Orwell’s agenda thought provoking –at best. As I recall, the Arizona shooter posted similar Orwellian inspired views on YouTube shortly before opening fire into a crowd of innocents????
In any event, here’s what I actually wrote in reference to the NSCRs, the binding documents that govern this mission, “Operation Odyssey Dawn is not technically a war. It is extremely limited in scope and, should the US go beyond the very clear humanitarian mission (stop the slaughter and protect civilian citizens), we will likely be charged w/ breaking international law.”…“Since the bombing campaign is under UN sanctioned authority (and limited to humanitarian goals), it is illegal to target or openly move to depose Gaddafi.”
Frankly, I seriously doubt airmen flying the zone really care what it’s called. Battle is battle and rockets flying are deadly – regardless of semantic arguments on safe blogsite sidelines.
Jai,
Strawman, followed up with charge-by-association? Are you a prominent figure in a Virginia political party? Do you routinely get away with that?
It’s not, of course, about Orwell’s agenda. It’s about your remarkable and deliberate association of “humanitarian” and “bombing” lending credence to the degradation of political discourse that Orwell noted. You are the one proving his point, not me. I am merely pointing out the frightening fact that your statement proves it. If there’s anyone here were should be afraid of, it’s you, not me.
CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/23/libya.war/index.html?hpt=C1
“It is relatively quiet today — this is the first time we feel that way in weeks,” said Mohammed, an opposition spokesman in the city who would only give his first name. “We want to express our gratitude to the international community since there were airstrikes this morning.”
He and a Misrata Central Hospital doctor said the situation was dramatically improved Wednesday, after overnight and early morning airstrikes that they said targeted at least two pro-Gadhafi positions.
Now, your words: “Since the bombing campaign is under UN sanctioned authority (and limited to humanitarian goals), it is illegal to target or openly move to depose Gaddafi.”
I guess it’s time for being charged, then, with breaking international law. Care to comment?
Brian has been silent for too long. Having introduced the notion of “supporting democracy” as a justification for the attacks, while noting that “We’re not deposing Qaddafi,” I asked a few questions which he has not answered. What are my chances of getting answers: Slim, or none?
Brian, I asked:
What’s the mission in Libya? Once Qaddafi is deposed, what exactly happens next? Does a new, happy democracy spring up from whole cloth? How long does it take to establish this? For extra credit, describe the democratic tradition’s deep roots among the Libyan people. Explain how the people there yearn for expressing their political will through the electoral process.
When the old suppressed tribal factions start killing each other, who intervenes then? Do we send in troops and occupy the place? Will they “welcome us as liberators?” What’s the exit plan? What does the end game look like? Did you think about any of this?
No Jacoby, I’m not a prominent Virginia politician, but I thank you for the compliment. Are you LD? You’re having a difficult time processing input.
“…it is illegal to target or openly move to depose Gaddafi.” refers to the man, the person, the mass collection of living cells that make up a very specific, particular, one-of-a-kind human being known as Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi, leader of Libya since 1969. THAT guy.
“… the situation was dramatically improved Wednesday, after overnight … airstrikes … targeted … pro-Gadhafi positions” refers to forces, air defense targets, military communications, tanks, etc. It does NOT refer to THE GUY,
READ THE UNSCRs!
Re. my frightening use of words (“humanitarian” & “bombing”) ~ you keep reading Orwell; I’ll stick with historians and logic. I’m guessing citizens of Rwanda, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cambodia, Nanking, Russia, Turkey, and Darfur would have been overjoyed to hear/read those two words used DELIBERATELY together … and that ‘guests’ of ’45 Buchenwald would probably strongly disagree with you (and Mr. Orwell) on this one.
“Trust me, Wilbur. People are very gullible. They’ll believe anything they see in print.” – Charlotte’s Web (another terrific work of fiction!)
D,
depose Gaddafi.
de·pose (d-pz)
v. de·posed, de·pos·ing, de·pos·es
v.tr.
1.
a. To remove from office or power.
b. To dethrone.
So, attacking his troops on the ground while in the middle of an uprising, with the stated intention of deposing him, in your mind isn’t openly moving to depose him?
Did you forget (already) this:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-22/allies-control-of-airspace-in-libya-puts-qaddafi-s-ground-forces-at-risk.html
Obama and other alliance leaders, including U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, have declared that their political objective is to force Qaddafi from power after more than four decades. Ham said it is “possible” the Libyan dictator would remain in power for some time.
Talk about difficulty processing information.
Jacoby – asked and answered. Memory issues also?
Jay D., I think you are right and team Obama is backpeddling and playing lawyer. I believe I heard Hillary say Gadhafi could serve his country by leaving. So, legal dancing aside, and acknowledging the point already made that they hope to accidently kill him, let us be honest. They DO have regime change as an end goal for whatever reason.
We are engaging in war. Regime change/accidental assassination, tilting the balance in a civil war by taking out the capability, this is no mere humanitarian mission. Regime change is not part of the limited ability to act without congressional action. Well, unless we are under immediate threat and a swift change is possible and can relieve that threat.
Further, I dion’t believe in open ended crap about we reserving the right to bomb you to defenselessness years & years later if you violate the rules we set for you. When does it end?
It doesn’t matter if the UN says this action is ok. We STILL have checks & balances, we still have the Constitution. That trumps the permissions of the UN. At least there is some hope this farce will be short lived though wrong.
I’m not buying the great threat to European oil due to Libya. Please explain that.
Did someone say something about UN Security Council Resolutions prohibiting action against Qaddafi?
READ THE UNSCRs!
Do you guys read, or are your minds already made up? Does the U.N. matter, yes or no?
“…it is illegal to target or openly move to depose Gaddafi.” refers to the man, the person, the mass collection of living cells that make up a very specific, particular, one-of-a-kind human being known as Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi, leader of Libya since 1969. THAT guy.”
de·pose (d-pz)
v. de·posed, de·pos·ing, de·pos·es
v.tr.
1.
a. To remove from office or power.
b. To dethrone.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/03/23/idINIndia-55826920110323
Thu Mar 24, 2011 4:23am IST
BERLIN (Reuters) – Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s compound in Ajdabiyah was subject to air strikes, Arabiya TV reported on Wednesday.
http://www.reuters.com/places/libya
Thu Mar 24, 2011(Reuters) – It may take a coalition of Western powers days or weeks to destroy Muammar Gaddafi’s military, but it will not require months, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said on Thursday.
Western warplanes hit Libya for a fifth night on Thursday, but have so far failed to stop Gaddafi’s tanks shelling rebel-held towns or dislodge his armor from a strategic junction in the east.
Juppe said Arab leaders needed to understand that the tide of protests sweeping the region would change things for good and that all countries, including Saudi Arabia, needed to take into account the aspirations of the Arab people.
http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE72N03A20110324
Thu Mar 24, 2011 BENGHAZI, Libya (Reuters) – Libya’s rebel national council on Wednesday named a U.S.-based academic and exile opposition figure, Ali Tarhouni, as the senior finance official in a transitional government it is setting up.
He will head the financial and commercial committee, in effect acting as finance minister in a body which the rebels hope will win international recognition in their struggle against Muammar Gaddafi’s 41 year-rule.
Britt, heard a great quote this week, “One only finds certainty in a closed mind”. That’s where I sit on this issue … mind still open.
What I do note is:
1. It is highly unusual for UN to move so quickly to direct authorization of force.
2. After reading the 2005 R2P and UNSCRs 1970+73 (and noting who sits/votes on council), I was satisfied this assembly judged odds of civilian mass murder (without UN protections) to be high and danger imminent.
3. President Obama isn’t a cowboy; 3rd military front is the very last thing his administration wants/needs. Perhaps it was Number 10 Downing St. calling in one of many favors owed or after review of evidence he agrees with UNSC findings? For whatever reason, I can’t believe THIS president pushed the go button without hard consideration and pressure.
4. Absolutely agree; UN permission/law doesn’t trump US constitution, but the Libyan action couldn’t have taken place (legally) without it. US constitutionality of President’s authority is muddy waters – and very likely cleared up with a later, rather than sooner, congressional vote in the next few weeks.
5. Regime change is, of course, the real allied end goal– imagine post WWII Germany with Hitler still on the payroll: Libya is no different.
6. Gaddafi fights with imported, bought & paid for mercenary units – does hiring non-Libyan professional thugs to quash a popular uprising define “civil war”… or something else?
The only hard, certain position I hold was expressed earlier. This is a complex, multilayered, multiregional, and likely critical world moment – a situation more nuanced and thorny than constitutional law questions will answer, or Radtke’s simplistic statement acknowledges. Radtke’s statement was characteristic first out of the box community-organizer whip up the troops & consequences be damned chatter. I’m hoping for more in my next Senator.
Simplistic an poorly thought out, Jay D.? Like comparing Hitler, a world wide threat to Gadffi, just a threat to his own people or region at most? I do know how spell Hitler. Not sure about the mad man running Libya. I see nothing wrong with what she said. Even Allen jumped on that bandwagon. Where is the simplistic and other name calling that should be going his way. Explain how developed his process was since it was a mimic of Radtke’s.
Sorry for the typos. On my phone………
Britt, perhaps sorry pick of murderers on my part – remove Adolf and insert Pol Pot (or other) if you like. Point was: it’s near impossible to move forward with same regime after ground conditions deteriorate into mass civilian murder/genocide (IMHO).
If G.A. is riding same bandwagon, then every criticism/comment/opinion directed towards Radtke’s statements apply equally to G.A. THAT, at least, is simple!
Leave your response