Where have I characterized either side as good or bad? That’s irrelevant.
And now we’ve taken sides, and the rebel forces will massacre their opponents. Where’s your concern about that?
All your whining and obfuscation and impugning of motives does is serve to remind me of why I lost any belief in your honesty long ago.
Nonsense, they never “welcomed us as liberators” in Iraq. We staged a few photo ops like the famous toppling of Saddam’s statue, but they knew that we were their enemy before we invaded, much less after. We’d spent a long time demonstrating it to them after all. And our entire conduct during the invasion underlined that we were their enemy.
I generally agree, but I’m curious to know what basis your conclusion has. How did you reach this conclusion?
The fact that a few of those things were staged does not prove the Shi’a and the Kurds (80% of the Iraq population) did not welcome us at first. I’m sure you can’t imagine anyone thinking of Americans as anything but evil, but that’s your own peculiar worldview.
I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, but I’m certainly going to ignore you now.
I would like to hear xenophon41’s answer, but I would say the President has constitutional authority to carry out the terms of a treaty (here, the terms are our security commitments under the UN Charter).
The WPR tries to limit the President’s constitutional power by statute, which it cannot. This is one of the many reasons the WPR is flawed, however noble it tries to be.
IANAL, as I think you know, so this is not a fully informed opinion. However, from reading the metric ton of commentary on the subject, I note that precedent is on the side of much leeway for presidential discretion in the use of small military expeditions within the confines of longstanding treaty obligations or when used to exert foreign policy priorities.
There have obviously been limitations placed, post Vietnam, on the POTUS’ ability to deploy troops, and there’s a definite time clock established for the duration of discretionary adventures. But I can’t find definite agreement on the precise limits of presidential discretionary authority, and I believe until and unless these limits are tested via the judicial process, they’ll remain very loosely defined.
Which unavoidably means each President will push the boundaries if & when he or she decides it’s expedient to do so. And I don’t think Mr. Obama has come close yet to the boundaries set by previous occupants of the White House.
There certainly is ample precedent, and I agree that Obama isn’t doing anything beyond what other presidents have done. However, the limitations you mention are statutory, and not constitutional in nature. If you agree that the president has Constitutional authority to wage war without the consent of Congress, then I don’t see how you can say there are any limits, short of impeachment.
It’s also going to tend to be the worldview of anyone subjected to years of sanctions and indiscriminate bombing. Not to mention oppression by Saddam while we supported him, including slaughter using WMDs that we gave him. And outside the borders of this country, pretty much everyone knew that Iraq was a war of pure aggression. Few people besides Americans were willfully stupid enough to believe anything else.
Without getting into the meaning of “is”, I don’t think I said POTUS can ‘wage war’ without Congress. I agree the practical check on the Pres’ military authority seems to be impeachment, but the power of the purse combined with the power to deny legitimacy means Congress can only be bypassed temporarily.
By all means, we should be vigilant against the abuse of military authority by Presidents, but we do have available checks and balances.
I agree completely with your second paragraph.
As to the first, my only quibble is the characterizing of this as a commitment under the UN Charter. What other countries have these commitments, and where are they spelled out?
Is it Chapter VII, Article 43?
But it explicitly says that “obligation” is "subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. " That’s an easy opt out, not an obligation. No?
The UN Charter “treaty” (I use " " because it’s odd to say UN Charter treaty, kind of like saying US Constitution treaty). But anyways, it was a treaty, and ratified properly as a treaty.
The commitments are spelled out in the UN Charter, Chapter VII: Art. 39 (make recommendations), 40 (call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures), 42 (measures using armed forces may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security). Basically, if the Security Council makes a resolution it calls upon all member states to obey it. We are a member state. It’s the President’s constitutional prerogative to follow valid treaties (ie, the UN Charter).
I will note, there’s probably no “punishment” for not following the resolution. However, I think the decision of whether to comply is made by the President (and the UN Ambassador’s vote on the resolution).
Edit: just notice posts regarding Article 43; for the record, armed force is commonly used under Article 42, not Article 43.
But the US has ratified this, so consequentially we have a commitment to participate, even if it isn’t enforceable. Other countries which have ratified the treaty have the same conditions.
OK. Right chapter, wrong verse. I can live with that.
So, for now at least, the situation holds promise. As a theoretical, I’m wondering when, and by what means, Repubicans will attempt to take some credit for this?
“Obama, inspired by the shining example of Ronald Reagan…” Something like that, I’m guessing.
Well, Mitch McConnell, John McCain and other prominent Republicans were urging action before we entered the fray, so I don’t think it’s a stretch for them to claim they “prompted” it. Of course, the buck doesn’t stop with them, so they can insulate themselves a bit if things go south.
Definitely the right Chapter. It’s more complicated than I make it, but still pretty much correct. Art. 42 is more the UN putting together an ad hoc military force for a specific situation (ie, Libya situation happened, we put together a UN force to respond, after conflict resolved UN force dissolves). Art. 43 calls for special agreements to create a standing UN army (err, peacekeeping force) that can be called on whenever needed.
That’s the basic difference between Art. 42 and Art. 43. Some debate under what Article force is used, but the UN says Art. 42.
Obama will be addressing the nation on TV at 7:30 PM ET (twenty minutes from now) in what will presumably be his most comprehensive explanation of and case for the Libyan operation to date.
Well Frank, the last fucking straw for me is the parade of partisan Republican hacks who are currently doing nothing but being OH SO CONCERNED about the cost of Tomahawk missiles and keeping fighters in the air.
OHHH the money!
Jesus! Do they even care about how much was spent on the Republican-owned clusterfuck in Iraq?
Sorry - rhetorical question. Money spent on the military is BAAAAD when a Democrat president does it.
Doing nothing is generally speaking, fairly inexpensive depending on the subject at hand.
OTOH, you typically get what you pay for, so I guess it just boils down to what you want out of life.