Obama and War Powers

H

huisache

2,500+ Posts
Boehner raised an interesting point: Does Obama think the current situation in Libya and our sending of drones over Yemen does not fall within the scope of the WPA or does he think the WPA is unconstitutional?

If it is unconstitutional, then a vote of the Congress is necessary for the president to carry out acts of war.

IF it is not covered by the WPA, Obama needs to explain why.

I find it passing strange that Obama, who did so well in Iowa because he got to the left of Hilary on the Iraq war issue, is now to the right of W, who at least got a fig leaf from the Congress before engaging in acts of war against Iraq.

I declined to vote for Obama because I thought his lack of experience would cause him to run up a lot of box canyons, as W did. And no, I did not vote for McCain, who was mad and irresponsible.

I look to be sitting out the next presidential race as well.

But for those of you who supported the man, what is your take on this set of events and how he is handling them?

The usual pack of Obama haters need not respond.
 
I am not very clear on the background. Have we put troops on the ground? Combat or non-combat troops?

Have we actually led the charge, or is this mostly NATO and the UN calling for US weaponry, and a nationalist resistance to anything NATO or UN has its hands on?
 
05
I posted a chart showing the actual involvement of each nation that is participating.
Make no mistake this is a USA kinetic mission
The USA's is IT both in men, planes, missions etc
The Brits are giving good effort.
France has minimla involvement
everyone else is token at best

I will see if I can find that link and see if i is updated.
 
6721, that's not answering my question.

There's no question the US is involved. We have the leading military in the world. We're going to be involved in some way shape or form of every UN/NATO conflict. My question was whether the effort is led by our military generals -- or by UN/NATO generals.

I know there are a lot of people who don't like the US being involved in the UN and NATO, but that's an entirely different argument.

Are we actually leading a conflict, and the NATO/UN fulfilling treaties and obligations towards us, or is the NATO/UN leading a conflict, and we're fulfilling treaties and obligations towards them?
 
H2k5, I'd like to follow up your questions with some of my own. Even if this is "led" by NATO, are our troops not in harm's way? Are they conducting military operations and strikes? If the answers to these questions are yes, what does it matter who's in charge? Do you feel that if this is a NATO operation that the WPA is not applicable?

I'm just trying to understand your point.
 
My question was whether the effort is led by our military generals -- or by UN/NATO generals.
__________________________________________________

Why does it matter? We are still involved in the billions of dollars range. FWIW, a canadian general is in charge of the Libya operation. Although, I recall it being a controversial appointment because although he is Canadian, he is former deputy commander of NORAD and has worked in the United States for years. He might as well be an american general. I really do not know why we are involved in Libya. You have millitant factions that will probably seize power like they have in Egypt. There does not appear to be a plan of any kind.
 
05 Here is a link from the Guardian showing each country's involvement as of late May
"This from the Guardian, in an article to show the participation of the UK.

War fighters
USA 8507
UK 1300
All others combined 3100

USA aircraft 153
UK 28
All Other countries combined less than 200

Sorties through May 05
USA 2,000
UK 1300
France 1200
All other countries combined 1500

Cruise missles expended
USA 228
UK 28

Can anyone Obama included not say we are fighting against gaddifi? The excuses Obama has come up with are plain stupid.
Today WH officials said the USA has not been in " hostilies" since April 7. REALLY? So who flew all those sorties?

Then Obama had his people say, well our forces are at " little risk".

I am glad to see Congress suing the black mascot.
 
I think the President needs to and will make his own case regarding this issue.

What doesn't seem relevant is the term "war". Suddenly our involvement in Libya to help out the rebels is 'war'? Isn't this under the scope of the "war" on terror that has been used to justify why we are still in Iraq (but pulling out) and in Afghanistan?

To me this is nothing compared to what past Presidents have done. However I do not like our foreign policy overall. We seem to be involved in conflicts all over the world and haven't officially declared war on anybody that I know of. This has been a slippery slope and they need to change course. Defund the operation if anything.
 
The Obama administration has badly mishandled the domestic political aspects of the unpopular war in Libya. Back during the 2008 election, candidate Obama got a lot of traction out of making the distinction between what he called wars of choice, like the invasion of Iraq, and wars of necessity, like the ongoing counterinsurgency in Afghanistan. The former, he argued, were not of vital American interest and thus were inherently questionable, if not wholly invalid. It allowed him to take a hawkish line on the Afghan conflict while savaging the George W. Bush administration’s record in Iraq.

That bit of political opportunism has vanished from White House talking points, and for good reason. No one could argue that the intervention in Libya is a war of necessity. Mr. Obama did attempt to make the moral case for the war, invoking the intellectually fashionable but legally dubious rationale of the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) Libya’s civilians. But this doctrine met a quick death at the hands of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, who has killed more innocents in recent months than Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi did before the U.S. intervention but has faced only White House statements and ineffective sanctions. With respect to the repressed and bloodied masses in Syria, R2P is DOA (dead on arrival).
__________________________________________________

Again the US making poor decisions.
 
Don't you contradict your first point by later adding that someone a leader on the Left is leading the charge to sue Obama.

Or is Kucinich no longer on the left?
_________________________________________________

no, he is on the left, he is way left and he actually believes what he preaches. he is against war of any kind for any reason so it is not surprising that he is against the libya operation. he is a different type of guy. didnt he claim to see a ufo once?

unfortunately, the groups and persons that made the most noise against the previous wars in the middle east are nowhere to be seen. You don't even see any criticism of the president for this war on msnbc.
 
I can't believe Obama is saying the US is only taking a ' supportive" role as his jusification that he don't need no stinkin' Congressional approval.
 
Don't you contradict your first point by later adding that a Dem on the Left is leading the charge to sue Obama.

--------------------------------------------------------

Not at all. I applaud him for his stance and bringing the lawsuit. I do not agree with him often, but he does what he says. I was referring to all the left that was calling for the impeachment of GWB comparing him to Hitler and wanting to charge him with warcrimes, camping out in Crawford types.
 
His claim is that US troops are not in harm's way, so no Congressional approval is needed.

His argument is that the WPA is about soldier's lives as opposed to ... you know... blowing **** up. In his mind, he doesn't need Congressional approval as long as he's shooting from a distance.

Nuke New Zealand? Obama's call, apparently.

Such a tortured rendering of his rights and obligations makes me very nervous about the upcoming election season.

Particularly since he's so cavalier about his actions. He doesn't seem too worried about the consequences, does he?
 
An awful lot of people think the president can do anything he wants.

A larger percent don't know what constitutes an act of war.

What I still don't understand is why Obama is doing this. This is the kind of stuff the US was guilty of in south and central America a hundred years ago and is still paying a price for in terms of prestige and trustworthiness down there---and which most Americans have only the dimmest idea about.

I would give anything to know what the intelligence professionals in the CIA, DIA, NSA and Office of Naval Intelligence are recommending.
 
If as obama insists, the USA is only playing a supporitve role even though the USA has 65% of the people doing the mission , has flown nearly 50 % of the sorties and fired 85% of the missiles
WHO are we supporting?


Some one ask a good question, maybe a poster knows the answer:
Since this hasn't been authprized by Congress do the 8500 war fighters still get combat pay?
 
I think the answer to whether people fighting the "Kinetic Mission" get combat pay is that it is actually hazardous duty pay and the DoD authorizes it

so that is good
 
It looks like some of you failed to read hornpharmd's entire first post or are too accustomed to bending every issue into a partisan fight.

The definition of war has become problematic particularly since we've declared this a "war" against terrorists who are often best handled as a police matter or as an intelligence/special ops matter. Pointing to the difficulty of defining the term, as I believe hornpharmd is doing, is not the same thing as giving carte blanche to whoever is president.

The second part of his post identifies the problem of precedent in these matters and how, with a fuzzy definition and questionable precedents, we have a foggy policy. Again, not exactly an endorsement of anyone who has been (or is) president.

Huisache raises a great question. Many have answered intelligently. The discourse becomes (predictably) difficult when the usual suspects have to break it down into "your guy does it and he's bad!" The war policy problem and Congress' abdication of taking responsibility for making sober judgments about waging war in favor of using the issue for partisan gain or choosing sides based on political fear has been a shamefully bi-partisan development.

Apologies to Hornpharmd if I am misinterpreting his posts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top