Conservative infighting over whether the United States should intervene militarily in Libya is sign of good health. To remain vital, an ideological movement needs to have its basic assumptions challenged occasionally. We need to correct our wayward courses rather than allow mistakes based on faulty strategy to serve as precedents for the next missteps.
Many conservatives (particularly neoconservatives) are strong supporters of intervention, out of a deep conviction that the global advance of freedom promotes American security. I happen to disagree, at least insofar as the “freedom agenda” relies on the U.S. military as its agent.
Regardless of where one comes out on the policy, though, we all ought to agree on at least one thing: The Constitution must control the implementation of whatever policy wins the day. Yet it has become necessary to ask whether even this principle, so fundamental to a free, self-determining people, is still unanimously honored.
On Thursday evening, the U.N. Security Council voted 10–0 (with five abstentions, including China, Russia, and Germany) to authorize the use of military force (i.e., “all necessary measures”) against Libya. Ostensibly, the resolution is designed to protect the Libyan people. But not to mince words, it is a license for war against the regime of Moammar Qaddafi. It would kick hostilities off with a no-fly zone over Libya. As a practical matter, American armed forces must do the heavy lifting if the strategy is to have a prayer, and indications are that President Obama intends to oblige.
There is a catch: The Security Council is powerless to “authorize” the U.S. military to do a damned thing. The validity of American combat operations is a matter of American law, and that means Congress must authorize them.
Our Constitution vests Congress with the power to declare war. That authority cannot be delegated to an international tribunal that lacks political accountability to the American people.
Read more
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
3 comments:
The president has the authority to deploy the military without Congress declaring war......remember Viet Nam....we never declared war.
A Congressional declaration of war, not merely some alternative in the form of a resolution, ought to be required every time the executive enters into hostilities as a matter of policy—as opposed to instantaneous defense against attack. The wisdom of that Constitutional provision has been demonstrated repeatedly by the blunders it would have prevented if followed.
The current case in Libya may tug at the heart strings now, but will probably seem less sympathetic as events unfold. On what basis does anyone think the result will be better for the U.S. if Khaddafi is deposed now with our help, vs. losing power in a few years by death, mutiny, or some other cause?
Presidents undertake military initiatives because they feel politically pressured to do so. They don’t want to be called weak by political opponents. A better political solution would be to throw the problem back into the lap of the critics, as the Constitution intended.
11:25....allow me to point out that Congress doesn't need a "resolution" to control the conflicts our President sometimes gets us into....they do what's known as "funding". Cut the funds off. Thats having some "resolve"....some "backbone"...also called "dreaming".
Post a Comment