That’s how things were done in Kosovo. It’s a UN operation, not a declaration of war on Lybia.
I still just don’t get what what is supposed to happen after the NFZ is in place. We let them duke it out “fair and square” in the civil war? Libya fractures into 2 or more states? Kadaffy leaves, and there is no civil authority to maintain order?
I can’t see any option where we (or someone) doesn’t have to go in there and do what we’re doing int Afghanistan and what we did in Iraq. Spontaneous order and democracy isn’t going to spring from the desert just because Kadaffy steps down. And if he doesn’t step down, what’s the point?
I posted this in the Pit as well, I’ll re-post it here..
re: War Powers Resolution. Section 2(c) was quoted already regarding Congress’s view on the President’s substantive provisions that allow the President to use force: (1) declaration of war, (2) statutory authorization, (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States.
However, Section 8(d) states: Nothing in this chapter is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the…President or the provisions of existing treaties.
That means whatever constitutional powers the President has that are not listed in Section 2(c), he still has (that’s how it reads at least, pro-WPR people argue otherwise). One example is the President’s constitutional power to rescue (not the situation in Libya), which is not listed in the WPR. There are more, though. It just means the President can do more than the list in Sec. 2(c).
Most significantly, regarding Libya, is Section 8(b): Nothing in the WPR shall be construed to require any further statutory authorization to permit armed forces to participate jointly with one or more foreign countries…pursuant to the UN charter.
Not that any President, ever, would be impeached for “violating” the WPR, but I don’t think he even is.
But it sounds bad! 
Let’s not resort to euphemisms, shall we? Ghadafi was on his way to winning the war and when that happened, a lot of people were going to be slaughtered. There’s a valid argument against U.S. involvement, but let’s be serious here - the result was going to be the brutal suppression of the rebels and anybody who Ghadafi thought would be a problem.
That being said, I’m not sure where this leads. A couple of weeks ago a no-fly zone might have allowed the rebels to finish off Ghadafi. Now he seems to have the upper hand. Even if his military is diminished, I don’t know if the rebels can win. If they can’t win, what’s the point? However the attacks are defined and prescribed, surely the goal is getting rid of Ghadafi. I’m not opposed to this but I’m not sure how they get there from here.
yeah, but how many of those were done by a Black man in office.
There is lots of diplomatic talk that Gadaffy is trying to exit. He has been checking out an exit through diplomatic channels. He has to have a pile of money and a country that will accept him. Clinton said she has had several people contact her office with that information.
That would be a great ending. Even RALPH would have to spend a whole day dreaming up some reason that it would be bad.
Evidence: dictators of advanced years, Ghaddafi, Mubarak, Hussein, all without a grey hair in their heads. Obama, aging at light speed before our very eyes.
Conclusion: its good to be king, not so great to be President.
It won’t take very long to find the answer to this. If Kghaddaffyii is gone in a week, it will be an overwhelming success. After some period of time, maybe a month or two, and the madman is still in charge it heads toward the failure end of the scale.
I suspect that hair dye plays a major role in this.
Well, yeah, it can’t override the constitution. And I assume the other part is, for example, if a NATO country is attacked, we are obligated to consider that an attack on the US and help out if asked.
Here’s the whole section, because I think you left out an important part:
(2) (b) only authorizes activity already happening prior to enactment of this act in 1973. It doesn’t authorize future military action just because the UN approves it.
At least, that’s my take. Am I wrong?
Not necessarily. Unless we have grounds troops in there to preserve order, there is going to be civil war(s) going on when MK is gone. Actually, there might be civil war(s) even if we do have ground troops.
Did we learn nothing from Iraq?
The price of oil has been rising as the result of Mideast tensions for a couple of months- and Libyan production specifically was already down by 52% before the US got involved.
Now that you mention it, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush didn’t have any gray hair when they took office. If HDTV had been around back then, you could probably have seen the gray hairs sprout the moment they began their inaugural oaths
Kosovo’s stated purpose was to force the Serbs out of Kosovo, not get rid of Slobo (though that would not have been unwanted).
As it is the air campaign was criticized for being insufficient to achieve the long term goal and it was. The matter ended only when ground troops went in after the ceasefire.
What are you talking about? The troops were peacekeepers. Milosevic capitulated before NATO ground operations began.
The only way this bites Obama in the ass is if Gaddafi is still in power come November 2012.
It is from an American perspective. He represents us. The first point made by the op is the most important. Who exactly are we backing? There is no clear Libyan leadership and nobody has presented a case for our involvement.
The NATO side of this has already fallen apart so the planning wasn’t there. There is no leadership or ownership of what is going on.
So we’ve got a [del]war[/del] political intervention that may or may not be worthwhile with no stated goal and no leadership.
Yes, the war in Libya will end badly.
So will his other wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also will end badly.
Running 3 wars, esp in the Middle East, is really too much for any Community Organizer to handle.
Damn Obama for invading Iraq back in 2003!
Bring in a Hollywood actor!