Americans need to face facts: We have a runaway Executive Branch when it comes to war making. Consider an entirely different world in which America was obsessed with Peace as it is with war!
Our founders would be appalled that a President of the United States could launch the country into an armed conflict half a world away without a formal declaration of war by Congress, much less barely any discussion of it by the House or by the Senate.
Article 1, Section 8, of our Constitution is unambiguous: Only Congress has the authority “to declare war.” James Madison warned that allowing the President to take the country into war would be “too much of a temptation for one man.”
At this point in the warping of our system of checks and balances, a President can wage war almost whenever he feels like it — or at least whenever he can cobble together some “broad coalition,” as Obama put it, or a “coalition of the willing,” as his predecessor put it.
Sounding just like George W. Bush when he attacked Iraq exactly eight years ago to the day, Obama said that military action against Libya was not our first resort.
Well, it may not have been the first resort, but it sure is Washington’s favorite resort.
We, as Americans, need to face facts: We have a runaway Executive Branch when it comes to warmaking.
And Obama appears naïve in the extreme on this one.
It is naïve to expect U.S. involvement in this war to be over in “days, not weeks,” as he said.
It is naïve to expect that he can carry this out without using ground troops.
It is naïve to wage war that is not in response to a direct threat to the U.S. national security.
It is naïve to expect millions of Libyans to cheer as their own country is being attacked by Western powers.
It is naïve to expect civilian casualties not to mount as a result of his actions, which he said were designed “to protect Libyan civilians.”
And it is naïve to expect the world to go along with the ruse that this is not a U.S.-led act of aggression.
Finally, Obama’s stated reasons for this war, which he refuses to call by its proper name, are hypocritical and incoherent.
He said “innocent men and women face brutality and death at the hands of their own government.”
That’s true of the people of Yemen, our ally, which just mowed down dozens of peaceful protesters.
That’s true of the people of Bahrain, our ally, which also just mowed down dozens of peaceful protesters.
Then there’s the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, our chief Arab ally and a repressive government in its own right, which just rolled its tanks into Bahrain.
In the Ivory Coast today, another country on good terms with Washington, a dictatorial government is brutalizing its people.
And a brutal junta has ruled the people of Burma for decades now.
There is no consistent humanitarian standard for Obama’s war against Libya. None whatsoever.
Obama has now pushed the United States to a place where we are now engaged in three wars simultaneously.
He’s a man, and we’re a country, that has gone crazy on war.''
© 2011 The Progressive
http://www.progressive.org/wx031911.html
by Olivier Knox via reed 2011-03-22 00:27:38
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Monday faced escalating criticism of US strikes on Libya from lawmakers worried about an open-ended conflict and possible retaliation modeled on the Lockerbie bombing.
But amid broad support for moving against Moamer Kadhafi, it was doubtful that congressional leaders would demand an official debate and vote to authorize military action, as provided for under the US Constitution.
On the left flank of Obama's Democratic party, one lawmaker charged that Libya's vast oil reserves, not human rights concerns, had motivated the strikes and sharply criticized the president for skirting formal congressional approval.
The move "sends the message to the world that American democracy is deeply dysfunctional," said Democratic Representative Michael Honda, who noted the US Constitution gives only the US Congress the power to declare war.
Honda, a senior member of the liberal "Progressive Caucus," charged the Pentagon had acted "based on energy security considerations, which is particularly apparent given Libya's 7th-ranked oil reserves."
That "sends the message that America cares little about the human rights and freedoms of people in countries, like the Democratic Republic of Congo, Western Sudan, or Ivory Coast, without critical energy resources," he said.
"I demand a serious conversation in Congress before new countries are incautiously invaded and before America's legislative branch is eviscerated further," said Honda.
Republican Representative Candice Miller, a senior member of the House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee, said it was "very troubling and unacceptable" that Obama had acted without formal consent from Congress.
The president, who left Latin America after discussing the crisis with 18 key lawmakers on Friday, "should immediately return home and call Congress back into session so that this action can be fully debated," she said in a statement.
"What other internal conflicts might President Obama decide to engage American armed forces? What standard is he using when making a decision to engage American power? These are vital questions that demand answers before we get further drawn into this and other conflicts that have uncertain outcomes."
"With regard to Libya, we say what's the goal? What is our role?" Republican Senator John Barrasso asked on MSNBC television, cautioning that "mission creep" could see US forces involved for "weeks and months."
Democratic Senator Robert Menendez noted on the same network that Republicans had assailed Obama for moving too slowly against Kadhafi, stressing: "You're damned if you do, damned if you don't."
"I'm sure that if we had allowed the continuous slaughter of innocents, we'd have many of our Republican colleagues saying the president should have acted," said Menendez, who refused to call the conflict a war.
"On Libya, is Congress going to assert it's constitutional role or be a potted plant?" Republican Senator John Cornyn said late Sunday in his Twitter stream, @JohnCornyn.
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Republican, said Obama had "yet to clearly define for the American people what vital United States security interests he believes are currently at stake in Libya."
"In assessing US security interests and objectives, the president must also keep in mind Kadhafi's attacks on Western targets resulting in the deaths of Americans in the 1980s," she said.
That would include the bombing of Pan AM Flight 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie on December 21, 1988 that killed 270 people, most of them Americans.
A House Republican leadership aide, asked whether Speaker John Boehner would seek a formal debate and vote, told AFP that "at this point...we want them to respect the need for genuine consultation with Congress."
Obama's national security adviser, Tom Donilon, said Sunday that the White House would be "working quite directly with Speaker Boehner and the members of Congress who have responsibility on this as we go forward."
© 2011 AFP
http://tinyurl.com/4chb6xq