No, says Obama.
Now,
So no need for Congressional approval.
Yet he used the War Powers Act to keep Congress of of his back when he started this.
I can’t believe I actually agree with John Boehner on this. Whatever semantic argument the White House wants to pull we are still intensely involved in a military action in Libya, it’s been more than 60 days, and The War Powers Act applies.
This is unnecessary obfuscation and Congress must get a say.
By my reading of the War Powers Act, this definitely falls within its purview. But does it matter? War Powers has always been a political football, with Congress reluctant to bring it up and Presidents ignoring it, even going so far as to claim it’s unconstitutional.
It now falls on Congress to do something about it and be seen as the people “abandoning the troops” by pulling funding, which they will be incredibly reluctant to do. For that very reason it was ill-conceived to begin with, because they’ll only follow through on it if the President is so completely unpopular that they don’t need War Powers. But the law commits them to something they’ll never do, so they always end up looking ineffective, like yes men to the President’s military ambitions.
But Boehner said that Obama was in compliance. He changed his tone later, but I can’t imagine why.
What? No. What are you talking about? There are no troops to abandon, no one is there. This law is intended to limit the Executive Branch pursuing unilateral conflict. It’s important that this not be the case which was what the War Powers Act was all about.
I’m pro Obama, pro American intervention in Libya, but believe strongly that the War Powers Act is a sound law and course of action. So I am in conflict and am wondering if there is a side I am not seeing.
The Congress will have to pull the funding for the operations around and over Libya. When they do that our participation in the matter will end, and Congress will be accused of abandoning operations against Libya and allowing a tyrant to stay in power “just when things were working”. Does it matter whether or not we have boots on the ground (for now)? The end result is the same.
Congress will not invoke War Powers. You’re not missing anything at all, they simply won’t do it. They’ll either have to take responsibility or back down, and neither of those options are good ones so they’ll simply defer to the President after giving him a firm slap on the hand and telling him that he better not do it again. Which of course he will, because that’s what Presidents do.
Pretty much that. Bush got his funding from Congress for his first couple of excursions, so I think it’s pretty safe to say that Congress is a bunch of weenies.
Is a latter because of some kind of cult of personality thing? Cause Obama wasn’t pro-Iraq but his philosophy is the same for Libya.
Oh really? He’s sending large numbers of troops there with the intent to occupy it, build military bases there, and forcibly reshape Libya into a libertarian free market/weak government utopia? While claiming imaginary weapons of mass destruction as a justification?
Its the spreading democracy around the world wet dream.
More likely it’s about getting rid of an irritating dictator and trying to at least pretend we aren’t a nation of sociopaths. I expect Obama had visions of something like the aftermath of Rwanda, where everyone pointed fingers about no one had intervened. Now, he’s an American leader, so I don’t believe for one moment he has any more concern for the people of Libya than he does for the same number of beetles. He’d kill them all if it profited him or the country, just like any other American leader would. But right now standing by and doing nothing would be an embarrassment and accomplish nothing.
What is the definition of hostilities under the Act? In other words, if there are no boots on the ground, no bombing runs, just providing the support needed for others to do the actual bombing runs, is that being in a war? Is he actually correct? I know that some are arguing that the occasional drone runs count, but then aren’t we at war with Pakistan too? (Honest question. I do not know the answer. I have a hard time imagining that support services and these occasion drone runs count as war however.)
No matter what the answer the War Powers Act is toothless and a President who respected it would be very exceptional indeed.
CitizenPained there is nothing at all similar to the Iraq war and this operation. If the process for Iraq had been like this I would have been in support of it. The contrasts are stark.
Look, suppose we were in an old-fashioned, declared, outright war with another nation. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines all deployed and fighting for real. Would all our personnel be “boots on the ground,” or whatever the equivalent is in ships and planes? Well, no, of course not. Every military operation that involves striking an enemy requires a lot of support staff behind the “head of the spear.” Would we say that all those support staff, in and near the theater of conflict, were not really “at” or “in” the war? Well, no, of course not.
So it follows that when those people are supporting a “spear head” of Libyan rebels on the ground and NATO air sorties, they’re still at war too.
We’ve fighting al-Qaeda with Congressional approval, we are not bombing Pakistan, the Pakistan government knows the difference.
He’s conflicted, poking the Democratic president in the eye is great but he’d have to take a position that makes Republicans look timid on foreign policy. Besides, McCain and Kerry are already drafting Congressional approval making his stand moot.
Not all military actions are exactly the same. Do you think that all military actions are exactly the same? Do you think that the Iraq invasion and occupation was handled better or worse than the Libya involvement?
Do you honestly think anyone should care what you say when you pull out completely senseless posts like this?
There is no definition of hostilities in the War Power Resolution. However, there can be no doubt that what is happening in Libya over the past few months, including today, must be construed as hostilities. Throw out everyone except Gadhafi Gov’t vs. Rebels = Hostilities. Right? Tanks, and guns, and shelling cities, counter-attacks, ect. What Obama is saying is our involvement in those hostilities is so minimal it shouldn’t be construed as taking part in that war, and thus the WPR no longer applies (the functional equivalent of packing up and going home - you don’t need Congressional approval anymore if you’re no longer taking part in the war). What you were getting at, but he’s not arguing there is no longer any hostilities there.
The article in the OP is a month old, but here’s the acts Obama claims the US is currently doing, but are not apart of the hostilities:
Obama is arguing that makes our role in Libya too limited. I disagree. (2) & (3) seal the deal. I mean, (2) is using US aircraft to bomb stuff. (3) is using US drones to bomb stuff.
Do we know if this is still what the US is doing in Libya today? If it was only (1), it wouldn’t be laughable. But even then, you’re still helping one side win the war. It’s still not police action/humanitarian involvement.
If George W Bush said he was going to attack Iraq to free its citizenry or to support the rebels or something you’d have opposed it anyways since you automatically oppose anything Bush, the Republicans, or any conservative does.
WTF? Are you really saying that Obama (or any other American politician for that matter) would be willing to commit genocide?
I’m pretty sure that no president has acknowledge the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, so Obama is setting a precedent by doing so. Oddly, though he claims it doesn’t apply. We’re killing people, but that doesn’t amount to “hostilities”. Not sure how you can get more hostile than that.
Of course, Congress can cut off funds whenever they wish, which I don’t think they’ll do. One might argue that as long as they allow the funding to continue, they have given consent.
This is a kabuki dance, with a large dose of partisan posturing. Still, I wish both sides would take this seriously and be on record as being either for or against.
Didn’t Obama say in effect that all the necessary funding has already been appropriated for the present year? Isn’t the issue at hand whether Congressional assent other than the power of the purse is required?