The United Nations has authorized military strikes on Libya, but has the United States Congress?
March 18, 2011
Yesterday the United Nations authorized military strikes on Libya; giving Barack Obama and the allied coalition permission to interfere in Libya’s civil war. Barack Obama has stated that the United States will not put troops on the ground in Libya, but admitted that the United States would play an active role in enforcing the (belated) no-fly zone.
Here is some of what Barack Obama had to say on this issue:
Here’s why this matters to us: left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Qadhafi would commit atrocities against his people. Many thousands could die. A humanitarian crisis could ensue
The left in this country have long declared that the war in Iraq was illegal because President Bush never went to the Congress to get authorization for the war, and once the war deteriorated the left made the claims that the United States was now involved in a civil war in Iraq in which we had no business.
Here we have a civil war in Libya and the United Nations has given the president of the United States permission to interfere in that civil war. That might be all well and good but the question is: Has the United States Congress given Barack Obama the permission he needs to attack a sovereign nation? If the answer is no–and we know that it is–I would ask those on the left if they support this attack even though using their own arguments it would appear to be an illegal war if the Congress does not give the president the authorization he needs. Barack Obama is the president of the United States, he in not the president of the world and his first duties as president is not to carry out the will of the United Nations, but the will of the Congress and of the people of the United States.
If Barack Obama does not go to the Congress and seek permission to attack Libya he can only be using one justification to do so, and that justification is known as the Bush Doctrine. The very same doctrine that he campaigned vigorously against while running for president. President Bush believed that the Congress authorized him to use force to combat terrorism around the world, and that he could use that authorization no matter where the war took him across the globe, not just in Afghanistan, but this was not the interpretation that many leftist politicians had when they campaigned against the Bush Doctrine in 2006 and in 2008 by claiming that President Bush illegally invaded Iraq.
Barack Obama has continued many of the policies of the Bush administration when it comes to fighting the war on terror, and this could be the latest example of an admission that President Bush was right all along, although Barack Obama had to go back to the 1988 Lockerbie bombing in order to bring this into the scope of the Bush doctrine when in reality this is a civil war.
As Barack Obama continues to implement President Bush’s foreign policies one has to wonder if those on the left that believed in Barack Obama’s message of hope and change are feeling a little betrayed right about now.
39 Comments
leave one →
Trackbacks
- the UN Implementing no-fly zone in Libya | News Daily Update
- House Democrats want Barack Obama to seek Congressional approval for air strikes on Libya « America's Watchtower
- Sunday Links: Vintage Car Ad Edition | Conservative Hideout 2.0
- Liberal House Democrats question the constitutionality of the US missile strikes against Libya « America's Watchtower
- Democracia norteafricana « Sana Crítica
- As the crisis in Yemen deepens Barack Obama remains silent « America's Watchtower
- We Declare | Be John Galt
America's Watchtower 
Fox had a video of Obama when he was in the Senate attacking the very thing he just did. So Obama says someone must go, and off to war we go. This is going to be a hellish scenario.
LikeLike
It’s amazing the double standard now that he is president. Is the left going to be outrage if he expands the war on terror yet again?
LikeLike
A few observations,
1. You nailed it on te hypocrisy of the left, but whos suprised?
2. We just picked sides with Al Quaida,the UN has beenthe biggest Muslim sympathizer on the planet voting against US and Isreal at every stop.
Theres a lot to be said for the Tyrants in the Middle East. They have been keeping the radicals in check. Who knows better than them what dangers this cult of barbarians pose to functioning government.
3. This president is a bafoon, he has done nothing but weaken our Military from the Day he took office, from suiciidal rules of engagement in Afganastan to shoving homosexuals down our Militarys throats, not to mention the entire administrations un willingness to call a spade a spade when it comes to radical Islam.
If this is what he meant by fundemental transformation then I wish it stayed in the dark hippie 60’s era antiamerican closets it crawled out from…..
LikeLike
This is the source of the Ugly American syndrome, our siding with despots and tyrants because they support our geopolitical agenda while abusing their people.
One of the sorriest episodes in American foreign policy was when President Bush encouraged the Kurds to rise up against Saddam Hussein and then, when they did, we stood by and did nothing while they were slaughtered by that lunatic, who gassed them.
If we continue that approach and do nothing about Libya, it doesn’t matter who wins, we will lose.
As to AQ, just because they don’t like Gaddafhi doesn’t mean we’re siding with them, it just means that we’re on the same side of the trench. My God, are we now supposed to let the scumbags of Al Quaeda dictate our foreign policy – if they’re opposed to someone like Gaddhafi, we automatically have to support him? Is that what conservative “ideology” would have us do? I can’t conceive of a more short-sighted – no, stupid – policy.
And may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
He certainly is tranforming America and it certainly in not in a good way. PS, love the new name!
LikeLike
I heard about the no-fly zone, but must have missed the part about the “military strikes.” We have a presence in the area that we can use to support Arab and European nations without putting a single American fighter or bomber in the air.
As for the ideological part, I disagree with you. For one thing, the circumstances are quite different – we’ve watched this situation develop in Libya; with Iraq, our leaders acted on bad intelligence that had little credibility. It was as if the President was aching to invade Iraq.
If Italy, France and Egypt – all allies – put fighters and bombers into the air to enforce the no-fly zone, and we give intelligence and other logistical support to those units, do we need Congressional approval?
Hope all is well with everyone. I’m happy to report that we were able to postpone the first round of chemo until today, the day after my wife’s 50th birthday, so she could enjoy the day. The chemo went well, she’s resting comfortably and I say we’re 70% packed for our move (she says 50%).
And may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
From this article:
“President Barack Obama demanded Friday that Moammar Gadhafi halt all military attacks on civilians and said that if the Libyan leader did not stand down the United States would join other nations in launching military action against him.
Obama’s remarks came less than 24 hours after the United Nations Security Council voted to authorize military action – including a “no-fly zone” over Libya ”
The no-fly zone is part of the UN actions, but even the UN knows that the no-fly zone is toothless if it doesn’t include a means to enforce it. Of course passing toothless resolutions is what the UN is best at, perhaps that is the cause of your confusion. 🙂
Obama is justifying this by claiming that if left unchecked Ghadafi would commit atrocities on his own people, yet he condemned the invasion of Iraq because America had no interests in that country–he simply cannot have it both ways.
On a more important note; I hope that your wife is doing well and the two of you will be in my thoughts.
LikeLike
Well, I just heard that we’re either preparing missile strikes on Libya’s air defense capability, or that we’ve already fired.
As to atrocities, we saw the atrocities Gaddhafi committed against his own people and we’re responding, on conjunction with other regional powers. Saddam Hussein was a bad man, but at the time we invaded, he wasn’t engaged in any systematic campaign of eliminating any particular group of his people (that was years before, when we sat back and watched him slaughter the Kurds who revolted against him in the foolish anticipation of US support).
Thanks for the nice thoughts. Take good care, and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
We are now attacking Libya and I understand your point. To be honest I don’t have a problem with taking out Ghadafi at all, in fact we should have done it years ago.
My issues are–and the point of this post was–Firstly; I can’t understand how anyone on the left can support this when it is clear that this is a civil war based on what they have said over the least eight years. And secondly; I don’t like the fact that it appears as if the United States is becoming to subservient to the United Nations.
You are welcome and I hope that all is well at home!
LikeLike
This just strikes me as being completely useless. The power that be around the world had weeks to make the call. Obama had weeks to make some decision, yes or no. I would have respected it either way, but I think we ought to sit this one out.
LikeLike
It seems as if the UN was going to do this it should have been done weeks ago, before all of the killing. This makes it seem as if the UN is okay with a certain level of killing before action is taken. The delay and the indecision is what is most baffling to me.
LikeLike
HNIC says we go to war, by God we go to war… And HNIC goes to Brazil…
LikeLike
His will be done.
LikeLike
It is clear in the Constitution that only Congress has the authority to formally declare war, although as Commander-in-Chief the President has always held a responsibility to employ forces in self-defense of the nation. With the emergence of an enemy (the Soviet Union) possessing the ability to inflict a quick & devastating attack, the authority for the President to commit forces in defense/retaliation in the absence of such a Congressional declaration became broadened in a sense. Launching multiple thermonuclear warheads against another nation goes well beyond the self-defense conceived by the founding fathers. Perhaps that’s what has led to the string of undeclared “actions” that presidents have initiated over the years. It is not a circumstance unique to either Bush or Obama. The War Powers Resolution sought to regulate exercise of that power by limiting the President’s ability to commit troops to battle for more than 60 (in some cases, 90) days without congressional authorization.
Enforcing a “no-fly” zone must be considered an act of war. It is the UN’s intent to deny a sovereign nation (whether led by a madman or not) the use of its own airspace. This is not self-defense, nor can it be considered pre-emptive. Therefore, the authorization of Congress should be sought. It is highly likely this operation will extend past the 60 day limit. Recall how long we enforced a “no-fly” zone over a significant part of Iraq between Desert Storm & Operation Iraqi Freedom. Whether our fighters ever sortie or not, our military/intelligence resources will to some extend be committed.
Having said that, I think it is in our best interest to enforce the no-fly zone. We would not be siding with Al Qaida; we would be siding with our allies in support of the people of Libya. I agree it’s probably overdue – and I am disappointed with our lack of leadership in this respect. How long has Gadhafi been a pain in our ass, and how many crimes has he committed?
Finally, how the hell can someone be the ruler of a country since 1969 and not have promoted himself past Colonel?
LikeLike
Great comment, thanks for the info. The Georgia Yankee asked a great question above; if other nations enforce the no-fly zone with military action but the US only provides support through surveillance and intelligence would the declaration of war from the Congress still be needed?
Your last question is a great one! Perhaps he just did want to appear power hungry, a little PR move?!
LikeLike
The War Powers Act doesn’t require a declaration of war, only the authorization for employment beyond 60 days. The sticking point in the question is: If no combat units are engaged, and this is merely intel, logistic or command & control support, is authorization required. My feeling is that if our efforts lead to (or have the likelihood of leading to) weapons release, we should have Congressional authorization. Advisory arrangements can, and have in the past, lead to combat forces employment.
LikeLike
Thanks again for the info although it appears to be a moot point now that we have started bombing Libya.
LikeLike
Excellent question. The Constitution gives the president, as Commander-and-chief the power to attack but getting cover from the UN won’t change the fact that, as you say, Liberals went crazy against Bush even though Obama could do the same thing if he uses military force against a sovereign country.
LikeLike
That was the point I was trying to make because there is a level of hypocisy on the left that can at times be stunning, and if the left does support this then this will be one of those times.
LikeLike
I’m sure you saw that story about Obama’s words on Libya sounding exactly like Bush’s on Iraq.
LikeLike
It’s remarkable how President Obama’s discussion of why he ordered a missile strike on Libya sounds like President Reagan’s discussion of why he ordered a missile strike on Libya.
And may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
What approval from congress? All Obama cares about is if the UN gives him approval. He’s already indicated ‘he won’t move’ without UN approval. They run our military now.
LikeLike
Yeah, I think you are right and we have become beholden to the UN, it is sad really. I guess the attack on Libya has passed the “global test” that John Kerry talked about.
LikeLike
Ya. We’re just one big happy UN family.
LikeLike
Family? Yes. Happy? No!
LikeLike
Steve didn’t you get the memo, it’s the UN that governs us not our government. They say jump Obama says how high. They say pay, Obama says how much. This all part of his global citizenship crap. Who needs congress when Obama’s mandate comes from the world court.
LikeLike
I wish I could argue that point but I fear that the United States has become too subservient to the United Nations and we are losing our sovereigny.
LikeLike
It is nonsense (disturbing & disheartening) that with as much lead time as we’ve had, the administration hasn’t gotten authorization from Congress. Clearly, strikes were in waiting for, as you correctly put it John, the UN to say jump. This is not defensive or preemptive.
It’s odd how little attention is being paid to the fact that the process we have in place is being ignored. I’d suggest amending the Constitution to empower the UN, but is another moot point I suppose. (It sucks being an idealist.)
You are so very correct Steve, the double-standard & hypocrisy of the left intelligentsia is nauseating.
LikeLike
A great point about Obama having enough time to have gone to the Congress while waiting for the UN. I have used it in my last two posts on this issue, I hope you don’t mind. 🙂
LikeLike
This is a link to an excellent article laying out the sequesnce of events leading to military action in Libya.
LikeLike
http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/obama-s-first-new-war-20110319
and even better if I put it in the right spot.
LikeLike
hum… hum… An Insert from GilLeaks… To ilustrated the: Naive,Poor,Humble,Gullible,Stupid,Crazy hard working Americans…. The United Nations Security Council, is…. ONLY ONE VOICE!… The U.S. Government
LikeLike