Is “obtain the advice and consent” equivalent to a vote?
No, he didn’t. He advised a few members of Congress. He has not gone before the house. And his public address is tomorrow. This is the kind of stuff that will bite him in the ass if things go south.
The question put forth is whether it will end badly. It’s hard to say (from day one) because the President has not been transparent in his actions. Al Aqaeda has entered the mix and taken possession of anti-aircraft weapons. We have no clear cut idea of who we’re backing in this civil war. “Not Gaddafi” isn’t a political party.
As much as I would personally like to go into every country and “fix things” that’s not feasible and it’s not the job of my country. These tings are rarely black and white.
The UNSC resolution that we’re acting under does not call for us to back anybody, at all. It calls for us to oppose Quadaffi. While you may argue that the result is essentially the same, I argue that the process is quintessentially and vitally different.
The merest hint of substantiation would vastly improve this.
“Advise and consent” in Article II, Section 2 actually deals with the ratification of treaties and the appointment of public officials. As far as the role of CIC goes, the phrase isn’t used.
He advised the leadership of the HoR and Senate, both parties, in meetings prior to any action, and by official letter within 72 hours. He has hardly been reticent with official press releases and public statements regarding the US role in Libya.
What he didn’t do was call a joint session of Congress, give a prime time televised address (yet) and go personally to Magiver to explain his intentions and request permission.
I think FinnAgain is exactly correct. He only has to advise a few members of Congress. He did. (and 18 members is not an arbitrary number). Now it’s up to Congress to decide when they want to stop it (if they even want to).
The unwritten significance is not that the President can’t go to war without Congress, but that he can’t stay and create a “Vietnam” type war without their approval.
I wasn’t arguing a legal nuance. I was addressing the op’s question. “Transparency” was an Obama campaign promise that has seemed to have gone by the wayside.
So what it boils down to is that a week after attacking Libya the majority of Congress will hear the President’s game plan at the same time the public does. That gives us a starting point as to whether it will end badly or not.
If it were even possible to frame a plan, given the fluidity of the situation, instead of objectives, I don’t doubt he would. But the objective he’s made pretty clear - to get rid of Khadafy.
Naturally, there are those, even on this board, who would prefer he stay and that the massacre resume. Why they would want that, though, is so unclear as to permit uncharitable inferences about their motives.
Do we really need to insinuate uncharitable motives in those opposed to this action? Isolationism and anti-imperialism are honest positions to hold even if you disagree, as is a plain old fashioned objection to foreign intrigues and entanglements. Not to mention the well founded fear of unintended consequences and a rigorous expectation that American blood (or the blood of innocents abroad) not be shed lightly.
There are valid and honorable reasons to oppose this adventure, Elvis, and I resent being part of aspersions against honest objectors, even if only by my association with “your” side of the argument.
[/sanctimony]
Isolationism is a fantasy, and this is hardly imperialism (or we’d still be supporting the guy who kept the oil flowing all these decades).
Which again is simple isolationism, and does not need to be listed separately.
Which, of course, occur whether you act or not, and therefore cannot be a reason for either.
If you can give any reason to believe that any blood is being shed “lightly” by anyone but Khadafy, then please do so. Can you?
If the “honest objectors” you refer to *truly *think otherwise, something that is difficult to believe but let’s follow the thought, then yes, those motives are open to aspersion on the grounds of either dishonesty or simple fantasization, as described above. As, of course, are any motives based on ad hoc assertions of principle, or merely motives based on personality or party, if such is the case, and which unfortunately can be inferred from at least some recent posts on this board and have even been stated outright by some.
Meanwhile, that the massacres would have continued is fact. That we had and have the ability to stop them is fact. To ignore that and to stick to the positions you describe instead to rationalize it is hard to defend morally, isn’t it? Inferring less-considered motives is actually doing those who assert those positions a fucking favor.
Yeah, it will end badly, the rebels are linked with al-Qaeda 
Also, the justification for going is suspect.
Why the U.S. Went to War: Inside the White House Debate on Libya | TIME.com
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/middleeast/2011/03/22/down-the-rabbit-hole/
I love the military, social and political geniuses who confidently proclaim an absence of strategic thinking within the Obama administration. Every time I see these blithe proclamations I’m reassured regarding the inevitability of Obama’s second term, but more to the point, I reappreciate the lack of sturm und drang with which he pursues policy.
I particularly enjoy the portrayal of Obama and “some of his advisors” as eager neoconservative beavers trying to shoehorn a MENA crisis in order to “rehabilitate” military interventionism. Such insight the Telegraph analysts must have.
Just think. If all this concern on the right with Presidential authority, budget issues, strategies and exit plans had been in place back in 2003, we might not have a trillion dollar deficit for them to freak out over now.
What’s different? I mean beside the fact that our actions with regard to Libya compared to our actions with regard to Iraq are like the difference between a traffic stop and a SWAT team taking down the SLA?
Well, you might argue that he should have learned from the Republicans’ mishandling of Iraq. But in truth, this action and the invasion of Iraq are not remotely comparable.
I agree. This action will be probably nothing but a memory by election day 2012, but we’re *still *fucking around in Iraq.
All along, I’ve thought that limiting western intervention mostly to a no-fly zone seemed just the tiniest bit feckless. OTOH, it seems to be working, so what do I know?
In any event, “ending badly” for the US, for me, would involve a Libya run by frothing-at-the-mouth terrorists, following the miserable deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians and a few thousand US ground troops in a bitter mult-year conflict. Since there is no particular sign at this time of a committment of ground troops, I’d say there’s no particular bad end on the horizon.
Yes it will end badly. But probably better than the alternative. And in any case, it is hardly descriptive to call it Obama’s. More like Sarkozy’s.
Don’t you know that anything that happens anywhere in the world is either the fault of or to the credit of whichever American president is in the WH at the time it happens?
A minor but interesting point: who remembers the pundits who were totally sure that the Bush the Elder response to the Kuwait invasion made his re-election all but inevitable?
Is there any particular reason you’re happy it will end badly?