Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Congress should end US action in Libya

Guest Columnist

Published: Sunday, June 19, 2011

Updated: Sunday, June 19, 2011 16:06

At what point, in regards to the conflict in Libya, is the current administration acting outside the law? A lawsuit filed this week against the president shows Congress is prepared to ask this question.

On Wednesday, the Associated Press reported a bipartisan group of 10 lawmakers filed suit against President Obama for "taking military action against Libya without war authorization from Congress." The plaintiffs include Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.).

The president's 90-day deadline for use of military force expired Friday, June 17, in accordance with the War Powers Resolution. Obama has yet to seek approval from Congress for the military intervention in Libya, even though it appears that the objective of that mission has now changed. Although the United States is officially abiding by a United Nations mandate that limits NATO to protecting civilians; a senior U.S. official recently said that the U.S. and its NATO allies "are stepping up military operations against Muammar Gaddafi, hoping for a final ‘squeeze' to drive him from power — or possibly kill him," according to Reuters.

Early on, the U.S. held a lead role in the extensive operation in Libya, though NATO holds official command granted by the United Nations Security Council's resolution to establish a ‘no-fly zone.' The bombing, code-named Operation Odyssey Dawn, began March 19, on the eighth anniversary of the Iraq War, aka Operation New Dawn.

So far, the Libyan war effort has included targeted daytime bombing of the densely populated city of Tripoli and air strikes on Gaddafi's residences; yet, the administration fights criticism by debating whether there is even a ‘war' at all, as administration lawyers cite some semantic argument over the word ‘hostilities.'

"U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops," the White House argued in a 38-page report to lawmakers, according to the New York Times.

In a later report by the Times, published online Friday evening, the president reportedly "rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department" and adopted the legal analysis of senior members of his own legal team, instead.

The Obama administration has set precedent by declaring an ongoing high-tech military strike involving remote-controlled weapons does not constitute actual warfare. The operator of a Predator drone, comfortably seated in a swivel chair while killing targets on a computer screen, may agree, but people on the ground in Tripoli, in the midst of daily bombardments, likely beg to differ.

The continued hawkish behavior from the White House seems to support the desires of the U.N. and other Western interests, not the will of the American public nor their elected representatives.

Recent CBS and Fox News polls found that roughly 60 percent of Americans oppose U.S. military involvement in Libya. Two weeks ago, the U.S. House passed a bill demanding that Obama "provide detailed information on the deployment" to Congress within fourteen days, according to the Washington Times.

Congress should seize this moment as an opportunity to exercise a check on the president and put an end to the spread of conflict in the region. Further intervention, such as a U.N. resolution on Syria, will only weaken relationships with countries such as Russia and China. Presidents Dmitry Medvedev and Hu Jintao issued a written warning, this week, against Western interference in the region, according to an Agence France-Presse report.

The likelihood of an escalated military commitment in Libya is shameful, considering the U.S. economy hangs in such a perilous condition — on the verge of lowered credit ratings and a possible shift in status as the world's reserve currency.

"The first day of Operation Odyssey Dawn had a price tag that was well over $100 million for the U.S. in missiles alone," according to a report in the National Journal.

This is a cost the U.S. clearly can't sustain at a time when the Treasury is tapping into federal retirees " pensions to help fund a bankrupt government.

A victory for Congress on this matter is a victory for the American people.

 

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

4 comments

Anonymous
Wed Jun 22 2011 19:09
"You can't use 'economic distress' as an excuse for not aiding in the rescue of a country that is strapped down by a political and militaristic dictator that personally controls billions. You just can't."

Yes you can. It's quite simple and logical.

Logic
Wed Jun 22 2011 16:32
You can't use 'economic distress' as an excuse for not aiding in the rescue of a country that is strapped down by a political and militaristic dictator that personally controls billions. You just can't.

Also, the "$100 million in U.S. missiles" is a skewed statistic for you to use. The missiles have already been designed, built and paid for. Otherwise, they were going to sit around and wait for some other reason to fire them (who knows, possibly even a training exercise).

Chris
Wed Jun 22 2011 16:00
You forget to mention that President Truman did not get congressional approval - only UN approval - for U.S. military participation in the Korean War, and that President Clinton did not seek congressional approval for U.S. military involvement in Kosovo, though it was sanctioned by the UN and NATO. Also, you forget to mention that the War Powers Resolution has been regarded as unconstitutional since it's passage under Nixon. The President has the constitutional power to "make war," Congress has the power to "declare war."
Pauly K.
Tue Jun 21 2011 11:41
The reason this "bipartisan coalition" involves only the crazies from both parties (Paul and Kucinich) is because most people realize that theres a good chance the war powers act is in and of itself unconstitutional. The president is the commander in chief, if he believes the attacks in Libya are necessary than they are. This is why every president since the resolution was enacted has said the resolution is unconstitutional. I hope they bring this to court so the court can finally strike down this stupid law.




log out