# Obama's Libyan Adventure-Will It End Badly? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 22, 2011, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628 "2011-03-22T17:40:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/81 "2011-03-24T16:55:01Z")
Eh, yes and no. We didn’t veto or abstain from UNSC 1973, which clears invokes Chapter VII and Chapter VIII of the UN Charter. At that point is does become part of our ‘job’. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/82 "2011-03-24T17:16:51Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > Doesn’t make it our job to stop it. I agree but NATO has been the UN sheriff for quite awhile. It’s up to the President to know who he is backing and quantify what is involved with the use of military force. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/83 "2011-03-24T17:40:37Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > and provide jamming, intelligence and other resources unique to us. It will be kinetic diplomacy with a regime to be named at a later date. My goodness, that does sound ominous! ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/84 "2011-03-24T17:52:20Z")
Ah, _Kinetic Diplomacy_, Mattel’s poorly received attempt to combine _Risk_ and Nerf guns. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/85 "2011-03-24T19:33:21Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I appreciate simplicity and brevity, **John** , indeed I do. But this post could have used a touch of embellishment. Perhaps a link? Yes, I think that would set it off nicely. Because, as it stands, we have a wide range of possibility. > > “Bwahahahaha, you fools! My actions are blatantly and purposefully unConstitutional and there’s nothing you can do about it!” > > “Well, if you take out your zircon-encrusted semantic parsing tweezers and give it a thorough brickering, you could squeeze out an aspect that, in a certain light and if you squint, could look unConstitutional. Sorta, kinda…” > > Couldn’t be that quote from way, way back when he was a Senator criticizing Bush? No, that can’t be it, you wouldn’t be trying to pull a slow one. I’m sure you know that you have to get up pretty early in the afternoon to fool me. > > TL:DR cite? No. It was that quote, but he wasn’t Senator Obama criticizing Bush. He was presidential candidate Obama doing a Q&A with a reporter from the Boston Globe. AFAIK, the constitution hasn’t changed since Dec 2007. You’re the one who said he knew something about the Constitution. If you think he doesn’t, and you want to change your mind, that’s fine. Look. I don’t expect presidential candidates to keep every campaign promise they make. But I don’t expect them to tell us the constitution means one thing when they’re a candidate and that it means the opposite when they’re in office. It’s not like this is some groundbreaking new situation-- we’ve been there many, many times before. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/86 "2011-03-24T19:53:20Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > My goodness, that does sound ominous! It sounds like double speak by a President who has not defined anything about the [del]war[/del] use of military equipment to bomb another nation. There is no ownership of what is going on with no set goals. We don’t know who we’re supporting or to what extent we’re willing to extend that support. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/87 "2011-03-24T20:23:37Z")
Oh, the President said that! Well, that’s very different. I thought it sounded like some guy on a message board trying to imply something dark and threatening, but without any actual basis. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/88 "2011-03-24T20:31:44Z")
It will end badly for the sub-saharan immigrants. > [@](#): > > For a month, gangs of young gunmen have roamed the city, rousting Libyan blacks and immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa from their homes and holding them for interrogation as suspected mercenaries or government spies. > > Over the last several days, the opposition has begun rounding up men accused of fighting as mercenaries for Kadafi’s militias as government forces pushed toward Benghazi. It has launched nightly manhunts for about 8,000 people named as government operatives in secret police files seized after internal security operatives fled in the face of the rebellion that ended Kadafi’s control of eastern Libya last month. > > “We know who they are,” said Abdelhafed Ghoga, the chief opposition spokesman. He called them “people with bloodstained hands” and “enemies of the revolution.” [http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-prisoners-20110324,0,5389027,full.story](http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-prisoners-20110324,0,5389027,full.story) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/89 "2011-03-24T20:32:45Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No. It was that quote, but he wasn’t Senator Obama criticizing Bush. He was presidential candidate Obama doing a Q&A with a reporter from the Boston Globe. AFAIK, the constitution hasn’t changed since Dec 2007… I’m sure you’re right, that document hasn’t changed since the last time it was amended. Intperpretations of that document have continued right along, yes? > [@](#): > > …You’re the one who said he knew something about the Constitution. If you think he doesn’t, and you want to change your mind, that’s fine… Well, you got me there, I don’t actually know that, I’m just going by his resume. Maybe he was like that gym teacher in high school, who taught a class in Health or Remedial Reading, but, really, he was just the Coach. > [@](#): > > …Look. I don’t expect presidential candidates to keep every campaign promise they make. But I don’t expect them to tell us the constitution means one thing when they’re a candidate and that it means the opposite when they’re in office. It’s not like this is some groundbreaking new situation-- we’ve been there many, many times before. Perhaps the top five nearly identical examples could prove convincing. Out of the “many, many” examples at your fingertips. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/90 "2011-03-24T20:32:52Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No. It was that quote, but he wasn’t Senator Obama criticizing Bush. He was presidential candidate Obama doing a Q&A with a reporter from the Boston Globe. AFAIK, the constitution hasn’t changed since Dec 2007. > > …I don’t expect presidential candidates to keep every campaign promise they make. But I don’t expect them to tell us the constitution means one thing when they’re a candidate and that it means the opposite when they’re in office. It’s not like this is some groundbreaking new situation-- we’ve been there many, many times before. I don’t know why reasonably bright adults are still pursuing this silliness. Candidate Obama’s remarks were about a hypothetical Bush-ordered unilateral attack on Iran - and by unilateral it was not meant “on the POTUS’ exclusive say-so”, it was meant “the US acting without cover of international treaty compliance or alliances” and candidate O’s constitutional evaluation was further qualified by the assumption that no hypothetical acts of war or Congress had occurred to prompt the attack. In the case of Libya, the POTUS had UN and NATO cover, and had consulted with Congress for a month prior to taking limited actions in support of an international effort. Not the same morally, practically or constitutionally. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/91 "2011-03-24T21:37:36Z")
> [@xenophon41](#): > > I don’t know why reasonably bright adults are still pursuing this silliness. > > Candidate Obama’s remarks were about a hypothetical Bush-ordered unilateral attack on Iran - and by unilateral it was not meant “on the POTUS’ exclusive say-so”, it was meant “the US acting without cover of international treaty compliance or alliances” and candidate O’s constitutional evaluation was further qualified by the assumption that no hypothetical acts of war or Congress had occurred to prompt the attack. > > In the case of Libya, the POTUS had UN and NATO cover, and had consulted with Congress for a month prior to taking limited actions in support of an international effort. > > Not the same morally, practically or constitutionally. We, to start with, “reasonably bright adults” get the facts straight. Biden’s remarks were about a hypothetical attack by Bush on Iran. But I don’t really care about that. He answered in the general, not in the specific. Obama’s comments were in response to of a [Boston Globe interview](http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/) which was attempting to outline his views on a variety of issues concerning presidnenial authority. This wasn’t about Bush. This was about what Obama would do. The idea that “unilateral”, in that context, meant the US by itself is laughable. He’s talking about getting authorization by Congress, as is crystal clear from the next paragraph in the quote: > [@](#): > > **2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites – a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)** > > 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. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/92 "2011-03-24T21:44:32Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I’m sure you’re right, that document hasn’t changed since the last time it was amended. Intperpretations of that document have continued right along, yes? In the lat 3 1/2 years, regarding the presidential authority to use military force? No. > [@](#): > > Perhaps the top five nearly identical examples could prove convincing. Out of the “many, many” examples at your fingertips. Cambodia Bosnia Kosovo Iraq (prior to Bush’s little adventure there) Rwanda That’s just off the top of my head. And I didn’t say “nearly identical”. I’m talking about the specter (or actual incident) of large numbers of civilians being killed-- ie, the situation in Libya. In two of those instances, we did interfere militarily w/o Congressional approval. I have the sneaking suspicion that Obama was aware of that when he gave his answer. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/93 "2011-03-24T22:35:24Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > We, to start with, “reasonably bright adults” get the facts straight. > > Biden’s remarks were about a hypothetical attack by Bush on Iran. But I don’t really care about that. He answered in the general, not in the specific. > > Obama’s comments were in response to of a [Boston Globe interview](http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/) which was attempting to outline his views on a variety of issues concerning presidnenial authority. This wasn’t about Bush. This was about what Obama would do. Just to clarify, you’re saying that a question about what authorization the POTUS would need to _attack Iran_, asked of a presidential candidate during a period when bellicose statements toward Iran were coming daily from members of _the Bush administration_ had nothing to do with Bush and was a general question about Obama’s understanding of the Presidential role? > [@](#): > > The idea that “unilateral”, in that context, meant the US by itself is laughable. He’s talking about getting authorization by Congress, as is crystal clear from the next paragraph in the quote: Well, you may have me there, you clever adult you; I was remembering Biden’s rant to Chris Matthews. I will note that Obama made a point to frame his answer in terms of the success of the military mission and the “informed consent” of Congress, rather than about the requirement for an AUMF, but I will also note that I was wrong about his meaning of “unilateral” in that quote, and you were right about his use of that word. Since we’re setting the facts straight about this, shall we say facile inconsistency you see in the President’s constitutional understanding, doesn’t the argument hinge on whether one sees a substantial situational difference between the hypothetical which candidate and constitutional law professor Obama was asked to consider politically in 2007, and the real international controversy current President and constitutional law professor Obama was required to deal with substantively in 2011? And wouldn’t you say that Obama at least actually sees those situations as fundamentally different, particularly considering the next paragraph in his response to the Boston Globe, shown below? > [@Obama](#): > > As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/94 "2011-03-24T22:55:00Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Oh, the President said that! Well, that’s very different. I thought it sounded like some guy on a message board trying to imply something dark and threatening, but without any actual basis. I quoted the President’s position regarding an undeclared war with Libya. Run you mouth all you want but he hasn’t stated an exit strategy or who we’re supporting in this war. Congress got a closed door briefing so his once-promised transparency can be added to the list of his failings as President. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/95 "2011-03-24T22:58:52Z")
re: authorization for President to use the military. I can see three different authorizations for the President: (1) Constitutional, (2) Congressional Authorization, (3) UN Resolution. The first two are clearly adequate (formal declaration of war qualms aside). The first two clearly did not happen with Libya. So my question is, and **John Mace** and I were discussing this earlier, is why is a UN Resolution not adequate legal authority for the President to rely on. The UN Charter was passed by a treaty. A properly ratified US Treaty has the same effect as a US Statute. So in a sense, the UN Resolution has the same effect as US law, and the President has a duty to uphold US law (“take care that laws be faithfully executed”). I understand it usurps Congressional control over the military, but that’s what was ratified. Congress can always recall the troops at anytime per the War Power Resolution and/or they can always choose to not fund it. Plus you can always veto the resolution (UN ambassador is confirmed by Senate). So there’s still enough checks in place (for me). If anyone knows if this is wrong logic or just too basic logic, fill me in… Also, I did cite the Statute that executed the UN Charter “treaty.” It seemed to clearly state that when force is used under Art. 42 of the UN Charter (as is the case with Libya), the President is not required to get Congressional approval. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/96 "2011-03-24T23:21:43Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > re: authorization for President to use the military. I can see three different authorizations for the President: (1) Constitutional, (2) Congressional Authorization, (3) UN Resolution. The first two are clearly adequate (formal declaration of war qualms aside). The first two clearly did not happen with Libya. > > So my question is, and **John Mace** and I were discussing this earlier, is why is a UN Resolution not adequate legal authority for the President to rely on. The UN Charter was passed by a treaty. A properly ratified US Treaty has the same effect as a US Statute. So in a sense, the UN Resolution has the same effect as US law, and the President has a duty to uphold US law (“take care that laws be faithfully executed”). > > I understand it usurps Congressional control over the military, but that’s what was ratified. Congress can always recall the troops at anytime per the War Power Resolution and/or they can always choose to not fund it. Plus you can always veto the resolution (UN ambassador is confirmed by Senate). So there’s still enough checks in place (for me). If anyone knows if this is wrong logic or just too basic logic, fill me in… > > Also, I did cite the Statute that executed the UN Charter “treaty.” It seemed to clearly state that when force is used under Art. 42 of the UN Charter (as is the case with Libya), the President is not required to get Congressional approval. I think the issue is easily resolved when you consider that a UNSC resolution to use military force does not require that the US participate in said force. So no, the UNSC resolution does not have the same effect as treaty obligation. We can vote “yes” and not participate. And I thought we already decided that the actions covered by your last paragraph were only those grandfathered in-- not to new potential actions after the WPR was passed. **xenophon14:** I strongly disagree with the characterization of it being a “facile inconsistency”. We’re talking about how we decide to go to war or not. That’s the most important decision a government can make. There is nothing “facile” about war. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2011, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/97 "2011-03-24T23:36:54Z")
> **[HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News](https://www.huffpost.com/?err_code=404&err_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2011%2F03%2F24%2Fnato-command-libya-militaryoperation_n_840265.html)** > > Read the latest headlines, news stories, and opinion from Politics, Entertainment, Life, Perspectives, and more. Obama turned it over to NATO who said they will enforce the “no fly zone”. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2011, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/98 "2011-03-25T00:00:37Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Run you mouth all you want but he hasn’t stated an exit strategy or who we’re supporting in this war. [Oh, please.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x1e30_wyLk) ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2011, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/99 "2011-03-25T00:12:02Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > **xenophon14:** I strongly disagree with the characterization of it being a “facile inconsistency”. We’re talking about how we decide to go to war or not. That’s the most important decision a government can make. There is nothing “facile” about war. Way to twist and shout, **John**. A facile inconsistency is another way of saying “hypocrisy”. It was meant to describe the shift you’re alleging in Obama’s constitutional emphasis, which I’d call facilely self serving. Obviously, I didn’t use the phrase to describe the military operation. But don’t let that stop your amphiboly. Maybe you can throw equivocation into your next rebuttal for a hat trick. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2011, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628/100 "2011-03-25T00:40:00Z")
> [@xenophon41](#): > > … But don’t let that stop your amphiboly… . Thats going too far. I’ve never seen anything from **John** to suggest any other than an ordinary, natural, and non-perverted interest in frogs, newts, and axolotyls. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-libyan-adventure-will-it-end-badly/575628.md?page=6)