As I've stated previously, I didn't clearly understand the issues on why President Obama would interfere in Libya's civil war. But I've been reading and informing myself, and I think I have a better grasp of the complexities of what is happening in Libya and with its dictator, Col. Ghadafy.
Go to this link to read his thoughtful analysis.
I thought the best response to the article was from the person [KT of NYC] who left this comment:
"Obama obtained a U.N. resolution mandating a 'no fly' zone prior to sending the US Air Force to Libya. That took maneuvering, including getting the Arab League on board. With the Arab League on board, Obama protected the US from a diplomatic crisis in the Mideast and further isolated Gadhaffi.
With the French and British involved, he made sure that the bombings did not look like, and were not, a US-led operation. All in three and a half weeks. This is dithering? This is statesmanship. Moreover, while Obama did not obtain Senate approval for our participation in the no-fly effort, I simply do not believe that the Chairs of the Senate Foreign Relation and Senate Intelligence Committee, as well as Harry Reid, the Senate Majority leader, were not briefed re what was happening.
It's the Senate, not the House, decides when we use military force in foreign nations. Hence, Boehner's objections are ridiculous; nobody asked him, because nobody had to ask him.
Obama did a good, quiet, safe job. He averted a massacre. People are going to recognize that his is the steady hand and careful, intelligent mind.
Finally -- all that the Republicans have running against him are a bunch of wafflers or wackos. The President is betting on the American people to hear the truth above the hype. I think that they will."
I've been trying to research if the highlighted red text is correct. Anyone out there an expert?
I've read up on the War Powers Resolution, but I can't find anything that validates what is highlighted above.
3 comments:
The Constitution says Congress has the power to declare war (Article 1 Section 8). Congress is both the House and the Senate. It does not give that power exclusively to the Senate.
Let's not forget, too, that this was much more a French initiative that drew in the US than vice-versa. Not everything that happens in the world happens because the United States starts it.
Western leaders (including Obama) were, if anything, pushed into action by the rapid pace of events in Libya. Bush, by contrast, had plenty of time to plan the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and nevertheless bungled it.
I've never understood the argument "Why intervene in Libya when we're not intervening in the atrocities in Country X." There are many situations where it's not logistically or politically possible to act. Does that mean we should never help anyone? If there's a drowning man you can't save because he's too far away for you to reach, does that mean you shouldn't save the drowning man you can reach?
The Republicans are, as Egan says, floundering around like beached fish trying to position themselves in opposition to whatever Obama happens to be doing at the moment.
It's quite likely that within a matter of weeks, Qaddhafi will fall, the Libyan conflict will wind down, a new government will be set up there, and our forces will be on their way back home, with "mission accomplished" a fact rather than a boast. The naysayers will look like fools then -- and the contrast between Obama's manner of leadership and Bush's will be obvious to everyone.
KT hits it on the nose: These things don't happen overnight and the public language is veiled to say the least. Rather than hesitating, Obama moved with alacrity.
Post a Comment