Obama and War Powers
- Thread starter huisache
- Start date
I don't believe the War Powers Act has been violated. Supporting NATO actions is something within the President's discretion as commander-in-chief. No troops or units have been committed (unless I missed that post or article), only air force has been sanctioned, and Congress notified of air missions. That being said, I do not agree with the President's decision -- it seems impractical to be engaged in a long uncommitted standoff with Libya.
It seems politics are getting in the way of common sense here. If the President, arguably justified or unjustified, commits troops to a US operation in Libya, he will have to deal with the political unpopularity as the Republicans gear up for their primary, allowing them to look like peace-loving pacifists for the first time in decades. If the President simply stops providing support to Libya at this critical juncture, it would be both irresponsible in the short and long term -- the effects in the short term on Libya, and in the long term, of what the Middle East region thinks it can do to get by the US in the future.
To be honest, I thought the situation would be handled shortly after OBL was killed, but for one reason or another, we seem reluctant to get our hands dirty against an estranged dictator, sovereign or not.
It seems politics are getting in the way of common sense here. If the President, arguably justified or unjustified, commits troops to a US operation in Libya, he will have to deal with the political unpopularity as the Republicans gear up for their primary, allowing them to look like peace-loving pacifists for the first time in decades. If the President simply stops providing support to Libya at this critical juncture, it would be both irresponsible in the short and long term -- the effects in the short term on Libya, and in the long term, of what the Middle East region thinks it can do to get by the US in the future.
To be honest, I thought the situation would be handled shortly after OBL was killed, but for one reason or another, we seem reluctant to get our hands dirty against an estranged dictator, sovereign or not.
Uninformed
5,000+ Posts
hornpharmd
5,000+ Posts
hornpharmd
5,000+ Posts
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
[qutoe]I agree with you in general, but this is wrong.
Horn77
Thanks for the link supporting my post but since the other poster doesn't accept it I will answer her directly.
From NYTimes June 15
"
“We are not saying the president can take the country into war on his own,” State Department lawyer Harold Koh told the paper. “We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped, or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”
The administration contends that U.S. forces have not been directly involved in “hostilities” since April 7, when NATO took over the effort to enforce a no-fly zone in Libya and to protect civilians there from Muammar Qaddafi’s government. At that time, the White House says, the United States moved to mainly a supporting role."
nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/politics/16powers.html&OQ=Q5fQ72Q3dQ31
A REAL combar Vet,Senator James Webb D Va said it best when he said spending billions and dropping bombs on people sounds like hostilities to him.
Thanks for the link supporting my post but since the other poster doesn't accept it I will answer her directly.
From NYTimes June 15
"
“We are not saying the president can take the country into war on his own,” State Department lawyer Harold Koh told the paper. “We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped, or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”
The administration contends that U.S. forces have not been directly involved in “hostilities” since April 7, when NATO took over the effort to enforce a no-fly zone in Libya and to protect civilians there from Muammar Qaddafi’s government. At that time, the White House says, the United States moved to mainly a supporting role."
nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/politics/16powers.html&OQ=Q5fQ72Q3dQ31
A REAL combar Vet,Senator James Webb D Va said it best when he said spending billions and dropping bombs on people sounds like hostilities to him.
Ag with kids
2,500+ Posts
I'm getting the feeling you don't much care for Obama. You've given him a fair chance, and now, just maybe, you're coming down on the side of the argument that he may not be working out as well as you surely hoped as his administration began.
Some legal advisers said he couldn't do it, some said he could. Again, we come down to the basic problem of how we want to determine if and when we use force. Precedent gives the president something close to plenary power in this arena.
I'm not opposed to the reasons we acted as we did in Libya. I believe the perception was that a slaughter was about to take place and maybe we could stop that and get a new regime in Libya. I am opposed to spending much on ongoing operations in Libya. If the rebels can win, they need to do it expediently.
As for legality of the way we went to war, I see the arguments questioning this odd process we've allowed over the decades. The War Powers Act essentially gave the president more power rather than taking it away.
If someone is fishing for another frivolous stab at impeachment to undo the will of the people using this as a pretext, I consider that a vile abuse of power more profound than the abuse in the trumped up charge. If someone is really struggling with the problem of how we go to war or dip our toes into foreign conflicts, I'm with you, brother.
I don't think the apparatus of "declaring war" is particularly useful in the current campaign against terrorists. It is possible that we could have gone down that road with Libya, but we just don't do that much any more. I don't believe we declared formal war on Iraq or Afghanistan, did we?
An aspect of allowing the president to commit forces to blockade, patrol the skies, or land soldiers which is politically worrisome is the "cut and run" argument used by political hacks to blackmail opponents of further support for such actions to knuckle under for fear of being labeled cowards of the vicarious battlefield. The posturing we're so fond of in our theater of foreign/war policy keeps getting us into quagmires.
Some legal advisers said he couldn't do it, some said he could. Again, we come down to the basic problem of how we want to determine if and when we use force. Precedent gives the president something close to plenary power in this arena.
I'm not opposed to the reasons we acted as we did in Libya. I believe the perception was that a slaughter was about to take place and maybe we could stop that and get a new regime in Libya. I am opposed to spending much on ongoing operations in Libya. If the rebels can win, they need to do it expediently.
As for legality of the way we went to war, I see the arguments questioning this odd process we've allowed over the decades. The War Powers Act essentially gave the president more power rather than taking it away.
If someone is fishing for another frivolous stab at impeachment to undo the will of the people using this as a pretext, I consider that a vile abuse of power more profound than the abuse in the trumped up charge. If someone is really struggling with the problem of how we go to war or dip our toes into foreign conflicts, I'm with you, brother.
I don't think the apparatus of "declaring war" is particularly useful in the current campaign against terrorists. It is possible that we could have gone down that road with Libya, but we just don't do that much any more. I don't believe we declared formal war on Iraq or Afghanistan, did we?
An aspect of allowing the president to commit forces to blockade, patrol the skies, or land soldiers which is politically worrisome is the "cut and run" argument used by political hacks to blackmail opponents of further support for such actions to knuckle under for fear of being labeled cowards of the vicarious battlefield. The posturing we're so fond of in our theater of foreign/war policy keeps getting us into quagmires.
Ag with kids
2,500+ Posts
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
Pro Sports Forums
Recent Threads
-
Trump Administration Accomplishments
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 455
- West Mall
-
Elon Musk Stuff
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 525
- West Mall
-
Insanity, thy name is public education
- Started by ProdigalHorn
- Replies: 48
- West Mall
-
'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'
- Started by Namewithheld
- Replies: 3K
- West Mall
