Mess We Can!
Posted by Matt on March 22, 2011
In the world of global politics, President Obama has had his moments. He was served a plate of excrement, and has managed a fairly decent record on the world stage.
However, there are exceptions: He has failed to close Guantanamo. He has doubled-down on the empire-sodomizing black hole of Afghanistan. He got some sort of Portuguese dog, which I assume is mostly cork.
And these are sizeable exceptions. On 90210, Ray Pruitt was a pretty good boyfriend to Donna Martin, except when he would knock her around occasionally.
Now we move to Libya, the 3rd front of our impending 12-front middle eastern military sunday fun day action.
I’m no strict constructionist. In fact, self-proclaimed “strict constructionists” are usually unreasonable and unhinged longbeards with homemade napalm, or (in most cases), politically motivated clowns who hold these views only when self-servingly expedient.
However, I can’t deny the fact that this is another unilateral executive power grab I genuinely abhor.
As Greenwald points out:
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.
I understand that it’s hard to put that Executive Power Genie Back in the bottle. 50+ years of unchecked war partying will do that.
But despite the qualifiers trotted out by the President, there’s no getting around the blatant abuse of power this action constitutes. As Michael Lind points out in his excellent reading of constitutional / international law:
However, while the Security Council can authorize member states to undertake a war for purposes other than national or regional self-defense, it cannot order any country to do so. The U.S. agreed to participate in the United Nations only because the U.N. charter makes it clear that each member state has the right to decide, on the basis of its internal constitutional processes, whether to take part in an enforcement action authorized by the Security Council.
In other words, there are two distinct systems of authorization, one international and one national. Under international law, the U.S. lacks the authority to engage in wars unrelated to its own defense or that of its allies. Security Council action might lift that legal restraint. But once the Security Council has acted, Congress must still authorize the military action by formal voting, not by mere “consultation” with the president.
Yes, Qaddafi is crazy. Yes, he controls a lot of oil, and this country uses a lot of refined oil to fuel its transport vehicles and Japanese sex dolls (diesel). But if we’re truly just going around protecting citizens of other countries from their crazy despots, we still have dozens to go. I’m not sure we want tio get into that. (d.r.a.f.t?)
Eugene Robinson took a moment from his affable chuckling to write an excellent article this morning. This about sums it up…
Gaddafi is crazy and evil; obviously, he wasn’t going to listen to our advice about democracy. The world would be fortunate to be rid of him. But war in Libya is justifiable only if we are going to hold compliant dictators to the same standard we set for defiant ones. If not, then please spare us all the homilies about universal rights and freedoms. We’ll know this isn’t about justice, it’s about power.
Amen.
Gratuitous World 
Paul L Comes said
I think you’re points are all valid. You make a good argument against intervention and I certainly understand the “why Libya and not other countries like Bahrain”,etc. I’ve certainly been unable to, up until now, come down decidedly one way or the other. However, if you consider the Libya intervention and war on its own merits rather than just dumb it down to ‘another middle eastern’ country, I think the argument for limited American engagement with wide international and even Arab support wins out. No one argues, nor does the administration argue, that this was an easy call. But the president has to make decisions in real time, deliberating as much as time allows, and then come down decisively one way or the other. In this case, with the impending deaths of hundreds of thousands of Libyans staring the international community and Obama in the face, the decision not to act seems to me to be far worse than standing idly by offering inconsequential platitudes of support. If we had it your way, we’d have been hearing about the mass slaughter of innocents over the past several days. That impending slaughter does not currently exist in Bahrain and other countries.
Either way, say if Obama had decided to sit on his hand instead, he’d have the same critics he has today who’s only interest is to disagree with Obama at every turn. I don’t think that’s the case with you, I think you genuinely disagree with the decision and the fact that the President acted without consent of congress. I disagree but it’s at least debatable. I don’t think that airstrikes in defense of innocents necessitates and act of congress declaring war – it’s just not the same thing and to debate it as if it fails to recognize the vast differences between humanitarian defense and a full scale invasion and war. There are laws, like the War Powers act, that grant authority for our President to act decisively. If we waited around for a deliberative body to debate the merits for weeks on end, when in fact decisive action is called for, we’d be too late to defend against the slaughter. A government, and the international community, must have the means to act decisively when its called for.
As Rachel Kleinfeld of the Truman National Security Project points out:
No one wants to be involved in another war in the Arab world. But evil people don’t always give you the luxury of time. Once the threat to 100,000 innocent civilians became immediate, the president needed to act. We could not have sat on our hands, with aircraft carriers offshore, as Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi massacred civilians. Not acting would have cost America dearly in terms of credibility: a generation of Arabs would have lost faith in the United States, just as the Arab Spring takes hold in country after country. We cannot afford to lose the Middle East.
And Nick Kristoff, a pacifist by nature, says in support of the President’s actions:
“This is also one of the few times in history when outside forces have intervened militarily to save the lives of citizens from their government. More commonly, we wring our hands for years as victims are massacred, and then, when it is too late, earnestly declare: “Never again.””
…”But weighed against those uncertainties are a few certainties: If not for this intervention, Libyan civilians would be dying on a huge scale; Colonel Qaddafi’s family would be locked in place for years; and the message would have gone out to all dictators that ruthlessness works.
The momentum has reversed. More airstrikes on Colonel Qaddafi’s artillery and armor will help. So would jamming his radio and television broadcasts. Arab countries are already delivering weapons and ammunition to the rebels, boosting their capabilities and morale. In short, there are risks ahead but also opportunities.”
I often here the justifiable reaction from reasonable people that we’re just entering another Arab country, we’ll get bogged down, it’ll be just like Iraq and Afghanistan. Or friends of mine exaggerate, albeit tongue in cheek, that this is another part of a “12 front Middle Eastern War.” But if you carefully consider Libya on its own, and the dire and fatal danger its citizens found themselves in, the decision isn’t that difficult. Moreover, unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, the Libyans welcome our help with open arms.
“Then, on Wednesday in Benghazi, the major city in eastern Libya whose streets would almost certainly be running with blood now if it weren’t for the American-led military intervention, residents held a “thank you rally.” They wanted to express gratitude to coalition forces for helping save their lives.”
If our engagement is indeed limited and our allies do take the lead and we step back, as Obama states is our intention, than I believe this to be the responsible and right course of action. Obama doesn’t have the benefit of hindsight, nor does he often have the ideal amount of time, to make unfathomably consequential decisions in real time. And, even with his perceived faults and acknowledging his past missteps, there’s still no one person I’d rather have making those decisions.
Paul L Comes said
To balance my disagreement out, I’d like to compliment to you on your “empire sodomizing” adjective creation. I had to picture it in my head before I really, truly understood it.