This page was last updated on March 24, 2011.
Dangerous trend; Editorial; Beaver County Times; March 23, 2011.
I mostly agree with the editorial and this is consistent with my position regarding Afghanistan and Iraq. As I’ve written before, whether it speaks good or ill of me, I opposed attacking Iraq until I was convinced Saddam Hussein had continued his WMD programs and had stockpiles that could be used by terrorists against the U.S. Even then I hoped there was a better way.
The editorial asserts, “The rebels clearly hold the high moral ground.” On what basis does the Times make that comment? Does the Times know who the rebels really are? I don’t. As bad as he is, simply not being Qaddafi doesn’t automatically give “high moral ground” to his opposition.
The point about the Arab League involvement is valid. According to VOA, “Despite the Arab League endorsement of the no-fly zone, only Qatar has thus far tangibly contributed to the air operation.” According to DefenseNews, “Qatar is to send four Mirage 2000 fighter jets to contribute to operations enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya and to protect civilians, the French ministry of defense spokesman said March 20.”
Remember when people would tell us President George W. Bush and VP Dick Cheney’s daughters should join the military because of Afghanistan and Iraq? Examples are here and here. I haven’t seen similar letters about President Obama’s daughters (They are way too young now, but could pledge to join when they turn 18 in five and eight years.) or Sec. of State Hillary Clinton’s daughter (currently 31) regarding the Libya mission or the escalation in Afghanistan.
In another “remember when,” remember when several years ago lefties claimed President Bush was planning to attack Iran? At least two local lefties (here and here) even claimed Mr. Bush planned to nuke Iran. It was simply another straw man the left devised to bash Mr. Bush yet again, like the military draft fantasy before the 2004 election. Anyway, then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) got so worked up he said, “I want to make it clear. And I made it clear to the President that if he takes this nation to war in Iran without congressional approval, I will make it my business to impeach him. That’s a fact. That is a fact.” Likewise, then-Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL) claimed military action required congressional approval. Flash forward to Libya today. Now President Obama attacks Libya without getting congressional approval and there’s not a peep from VP Biden and Sec. of State Clinton.
Local self-described Marxist Carl Davidson provided his comments about the editorial on the Times website on the same page as the editorial.
carldavidson posted at 7:42 am on Wed, Mar 23, 2011: “I would add that what I think it’s really about is seizing power and control of oil in the region, and that it has little to do with the concerns for the lives and democratic aspirations of Lybians [sic].”
[RWC] Lefties might get some mileage from this opinion if they hadn’t worn it out over the years. In 1990/1991, we were told our actions were about “seizing power and control of oil in” Iraq and Kuwait. It didn’t happen. The same is true for our current Iraq involvement.
“Last I looked, the Constitution says only Congress can declare wars. But once again the War Powers Act is ignored.”
[RWC] Though the above is a popular refrain by some folks, it’s misleading.
It’s true “the Constitution says only Congress can declare wars.” That said, the Constitution does not limit military action to declared wars. Among other things, Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution says, “The Congress shall have Power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy.” There have been only five declared wars in U.S. history. Though pretty powerful, the only control Congress has over the military is via the pocketbook.
In prep for discussing “once again the War Powers Act is ignored,” let’s look at the President’s military powers according to the Constitution. Among other things, Article II, Section 2 says, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” Being “Commander in Chief” means the President can tell the military what to do within the confines of the rest of the Constitution. For example, the Third Amendment says, “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” The Constitution does not limit the President’s “Commander in Chief” power to a declared war. For example, Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warred with the Barbary States (a group of North African Muslim countries) over piracy without war declarations. Also, the Constitution does not say the President must seek approval of Congress for military action. The President can go to Congress for approval if he wants to, but the Constitution does not require it. At some point, though, the President must go to Congress for money. Thus, if Congress doesn’t eventually approve of a military action, the President will soon run out of money and the operation will cease.
Without getting into details, the War Powers Resolution (WPR) is an ordinary federal law requiring the President to consult with Congress regarding military action and provide ongoing reports. Whether the provisions of the WPR make sense or not, the WPR places requirements on the President the Constitution does not. That’s a problem because ordinary federal law cannot override provisions of the Constitution. Otherwise, Congress could take power from the President and the judicial branch simply by passing laws and overriding a presidential veto. This, of course, also means Congress could give the President and the judicial branch power the Constitution did not. There are reasons the requirements are stiff to pass amendments to the Constitution. The WPR passed over the veto of President Richard Nixon. I’m no lawyer, but I believe the WPR would need to be an amendment to be constitutional.
© 2004-2011 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.