Detractors against U.S. military support of NATO action in Libya

glennmagusharvey

These people bug me.

And this is where I can actually say that both Ralph Nader (former Green Party presidential nominee) and John Boehner (Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives) can go shut the fuck up.

Hatter

John Boehner is against it? I thought that he was just attacking the President for illegally continuing hostilities. That I can get behind, even though I'm completely in support of US intervention. We're the only ones who actually seem competent at waging war outside of our own borders.

FrodoGoofballCoTV

I think the theory is that we'd rather ignore a conflict that would be morally wrong to ignore than loose a conflict because we approached it stupidly.

Personally I'd like to see Obama get approval from congress and change the mission objective to "fight until we capture Mr. G, turn him over to the rebels, and leave."  But that will not happen. 

My hypothesis is that congresspeople on both sides are doing a political calculation on this, because antiwar folks are more likely to vote based on war, while the hawks are more worried about the economy.  Similarly, U.S. strategy in Afghanistan is more political than tactically appropriate IMHO.

glennmagusharvey

I also agree that I'm somewhat skeptical of the pace of the Afghanistan drawdown and think that it might be a tad too fast.  I guess that makes me somewhat of a hawk, which kinda goes against stereotype since I'm a Democrat...

^^ He hasn't spoken out against military action itself, to my knowledge, but he's still threatening to throw monkey-wrenches into this process.

Ponicalica

«We're the only ones who actually seem competent at waging war outside of our own borders.»

Like in Vietna--er, Ira--er, Afghani--well, that one's harder to tell, er, Soma--no, wait, the Iran host--no, er, ooh, I know, Grenada!

GLORIOUSLeader

I think he means "compared to other countries." Because face it, what the fuck do the Falkland Islands really have to do with anything? 

Hatter

We beat Saddam Hussein twice and kicked the Taliban out of power. Our major problem is keeping the peace, which, frankly, we suck at. When it comes to fighting against other nations, we rarely lose, and I'd argue that Libya qualifies as an established nation. 

If Libya suddenly starts using guerrilla warfare, though, count us out. We suck at that.

Tnu1138

Frankly I don't think it's our job to keep the peace and we need to save our resources, stay out of wars that are none of our business, and focus on covering our own ass.

Chagen

Tnu, you and I both know that the US is way too Jingoistic for that to ever happen.

Tnu1138

That scares the shit out of me.

GLORIOUSLeader

And? It'll peter out... eventually. 

glennmagusharvey

@Ponicalica: > «We're the only ones who actually seem competent at waging war outside of our own borders.»

Like
in Vietna--er, Ira--er, Afghani--well, that one's harder to tell, er,
Soma--no, wait, the Iran host--no, er, ooh, I know, Grenada!

Or, we could talk seriously and note that the U.S. is pretty much the only military that is currently capable of running large-scale overseas combat operations in multiple theaters.

LouieW

glennmagusharvey,

I realize that interpretations of who holds war powers (and what those war powers are) according to the Constitution are different now than they used to be, but may I ask how the current U.S. military action in Libya is constitutional in your view?

Tnu1138

jUst because we can do somthing doesn't mean we should. I find Militarism and warmongering to be unethical personally.

glennmagusharvey

@LouieW: If I recall correctly, the Constitution is pretty vague on this topic.  This probably isn't constitutional if you're an anti-executive strict-constructionist.  This probably is if you're not a strict-constructionist.

Congress has the power to declare war, but the president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces (or at least the army and the navy, if you're going into strict-constructionism).  So you could say that the prez can tell the armed forces to go and do stuff, but Congress...well, let's look at the relevant passages.

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;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and
disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be
employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States
respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of
training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

That's from Article I.

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

That's from Article II.

So actually, depending on how you interpret it, you could have any of the following interpretations:
* only Congress can authorize military action; the president can only call up the troops.
* the president can authorize military action, but Congress can set rules that apply to this.
* the president can authorize military action, and all Congress can do is make sure that the troops are supplied well.
* Congress can make rules concerning the land and naval forces, but since air power is being used here, the president has jurisdiction.
* the president is commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy, but since air power is being used here, Congress can set the rules.
* the president can authorize military action, but Congress can cut off funding if it military action goes beyond the length of two years.

...and many other interpretations.

@Tnu1138: Do you see how simply sticking to the Constitution doesn't always mean that you have answers to practical, real-life issues?

LouieW

glennmagusharvey,

Thank you for posting that and I agree that the Constitution is rather vague there. I feel like the War Powers Act only complicates this issues even more, since it seems to recognize that the President can commit armed forces to military action for at least 60 days without congressional approval. Of course, the legislation does not seem to have much actual bite to it considering that presidents ignore it (at least that is what the Wikipedia article I linked to earlier says).

Still, even if there are multiple interpretations of the Constitution, I do not believe that means that there are not some that are superior to others. At the very least, I think it is customary (and a good idea) to try to receive congressional approval before commencing non-emergency major military operations.

Tnu1138

the first one is my bet. you have ot really read the text in a consistant and very rigid way and before people say "i t was wirtten over tow hundred years ago it has to change" read Article V.

glennmagusharvey

@LouieW: Well, here's another complicating factor:

Such legislation to deny funding, if introduced in the House or Senate, would be, well, a typical bill that needs to get passed.  As such, it can pass with simple majorities (Senate filibuster notwithstanding).

...then the POTUS has to sign off on it. :P

Tnu1138

provided that there are no horrible earmarks.

LouieW

glennmagusharvey,

Well, Congress could override a veto on something like that I suppose, but I feel like these days it would probably be rare to see Democrats and Republicans both voting for such a measure. Still, I can understand why some may feel uneasy about a president being able to involve the country's troops in a military conflict overseas without congressional approval, since I think war is a serious issue for many people.

I am curious as to what interpretation of Constitution about war powers among the ones you mentioned (if any) that you favor now that I have heard Tnu1138's view on this.

glennmagusharvey

Well, for what it's worth, you DO have fiscal-hawk Republicans and anti-war Democrats sorta (...sorta) uniting in opposing action in Libya.  Also, just Republicans in general because this would make a Democratic president look bad.

I do totally understand what led to the creation of the War Powers Act, which is as you said.  And yes, Congress could override a veto on that but it would require a pretty significant majority of both houses--something unlikely to happen unless there's bipartisan dislike of the president's actions, which there currently aren't.

I honestly don't have a view of the Constitution that I favor.  I'm neither a constitutional scholar nor a legislator on Capitol Hill, so anything I say is moot anyway, and I honestly haven't made up my mind on this issue.  Perhaps I've been too used to sitting back and just observing and analyzing things as they are.

That said I think that current military action runs afoul of the War Powers Act, from what I know of the WPA.  That said, whether the WPA itself is constitutional is something I haven't yet decided myself.

PS: I owe you an update on the situation in your state.  Probably going to mention five main things--primary elections forced on the Democrats, the R-controlled legislature trying to do redistricting to shuffle borders before the recalls, the special session, the WISC's 4-3 decision favoring Walker's union-busting, and Kapanke's comment about hoping the public employees are "sleeping" or something.  I need to find links for each though.

LouieW

glennmagusharvey,
I honestly don't have a view of the Constitution that I favor.  I'm
neither a constitutional scholar nor a legislator on Capitol Hill, so
anything I say is moot anyway, and I honestly haven't made up my mind on
this issue.  Perhaps I've been too used to sitting back and just
observing and analyzing things as they are.

You are probably right about what you say about constitutional opinions being moot if one does not have much power to actually do anything with them. I am not sure you need to have an opinion about this either, I was just curious since I doubt you are a strict-constructionist given your reply to Tnu1138.

That said I think that current military action runs afoul of the War
Powers Act, from what I know of the WPA.  That said, whether the WPA
itself is constitutional is something I haven't yet decided myself.

I think the Wikipedia article mentioned something about the act including a legislative veto too which from what I understand are themselves unconstitutional (i.e. Congress does not have enforcement power, the executive branch does).

As for the other stuff, please PM me that if you want to discuss it. I do not think that kind of thing belongs in this topic. 

glennmagusharvey

I'm not a strict-constructionist or one of those similar types of ideologues.

I believe that the Constitution was intended to evolve over time, and was deliberately vague for that purpose.

Not to mention that thing like expecting Congress and the president to agree about military action a lot of the time COMPLETELY did not foresee our country's being thrust into the role of world's sole superpower or world's policeman.