re: "The Obama Administration in Contempt of Congress on Libya and the Underpants Gnome Theory of War"

Aaron Worthing at Patterico's Pontifications ("Harangues that Just Make Sense") is reading the plain English meaning of the War Powers Act.

Money quote(s):

"If you are going to argue that the President can do this under his inherent powers under the Constitution, that is fine. I will disagree with you, but you are within the realm of reasoned debate. But you can’t pretend that the War Powers Act covers this—you can argue that this power is inherent in the office of Commander-in-Chief, but you can’t honestly and competently claim that the War Powers Act covers this. This isn’t a foreign language. Hell, this isn’t even lawyer-code-talk. We were not in an emergency created by an attack on the United States, its territories or its armed forces when Obama started bombing Libya. It is, simply put, a lie to say it lawful under this act."

As I've noted before, as over-lawyered as our military leadership structure has become, this has to have been staffed so that the various generals and admirals don't have legal exposure on this.

"(D)uring the Revolution our military force was pretty pitiful, too, but usually the underdog loses. That is why we call them the underdog, and why it is an inspiring movie cliché when they win. Because they usually don’t win. So we might end up blowing another hole in our deficit, with little to show for it.

Nice. I have supported the idea of intervening from the beginning. I think McCain was right to ask for intervention when he asked for it. But if in our dithering the rebels have dwindled down to a force that cannot win, then we have to fish or cut bait. We either do a full scale invasion—which I oppose—or we shouldn’t even bother.

But just having a no-fly zone (which apparently does include blowing up some tanks—huh?), is just half-assed."

This is called limited warfare. Which is kind of an elastic term, as it's defined more by what it's not (it's not unlimited warfare, in other words).

"I had been trying to put words to my concern about how this war has been run for days, and I think I finally found the best metaphor. It’s the Underpants Gnomes theory of warfare. Of course I explain the Underpants Gnome metaphor here, but this is Obama’s theory of how to win the war:

Step 1: Enforce a No-Fly Zone Step 2: ? Step 3: Regime Change!

So his second step is a question mark, because he is just hoping the Rebels do something to take down Qdaffy, but he has no idea what it would be, or apparently even if they are capable of doing it, with our help. I support regime change and so on, but I am against half-assing it.

Anyway, Congress has to put its foot down. At the very least he has to be censured. That should be step one. And if Obama continues to show this contempt of the separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution, it would be impeachment time. And some would say it was overdue."

Congress doesn't seem to be having many problems with this thus far, aside from one or two Members raising the issue.

If U.S. involvement escalates (think "boots on the ground") or we start to take losses of men and materiel, and it could become katie-bar-the-door time in D.C.

re: "NATO: Hey, We'll Bomb The Rebels, Too"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ just keeps getting smarter all the time.

Money quote(s):

"If America wants to enter other states and declare a monopoly on sanctioned violence, well, that's a good way to keep outrages against civilians low, but comes at the cost of using American troops for every damn fight in the world.

If you're going to go a different way -- supporting indigenous fighters with air capabilities and intelligence -- you have to accept that there are going to be some vicious slaughters of civilians by "freedom fighters," but certainly you want as few such massacres as possible. What do you do? You can threaten an end to air cover and supply. But that doesn't thwart a slaughter in progress.

I'm not sure a threat to attack the rebels we're supporting is necessarily a bad thing. We need them to keep it clean. The temptation in any war, especially a civil one, is to get dirty and vicious as soon as possible and then keep topping yourself. Our troops don't do that (except for the occasional psychopaths who are then court martialed), but we don't want to have to insert our troops into every situation where we might want to flex some military might.

If we're going to fight in this limited fashion (and I think the old Cold War model of limited support is well worth revisiting), we do need to let our "freedom fighters" know that there are some things we just won't/can't countenance, and there's no way we can stay in a fight if our "freedom fighters" decide to unleash their inner Al Qaeda.

As for actually bombing them, though: I really can't think of a more preposterous situation than bombing both sides in a civil war.

Oh, and meanwhile, SecDef Gates said there won't be any ground troops in Libya as long as he's serving in his job. So, like, implicitly, he's threatening to walk."

&

"(O)f course, any time you have pilots in a war it means you're just one shoot-down away from a hostage situation."

re: "A new use of military force doctrine"

Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") is looking for the silver lining, and finds some doctrinal clarity.

Money quote(s):

"Out of the great and ongoing dithering, world sports & war by remote control tour some good may come. If the Libya no fly zone goat rope showed one thing it's that we have no coherent established and articulated policy for the use of military force. We have what seem to be some fairly clear guidance in the Constitution and the War Powers Act, and yet we don't seem to feel like holding our Presidents to the letter of those laws. We seem to recognize that a Commander in Chief needs some freedom of maneuver before having to herd those cats of Congress into a formal declaration of war or some lesser writ of ass kickery."

"Writ of ass kickery" is just pure gold.

Uncle Jimbo concludes, therefore, that:

"The President can, when he deems it necessary, under his Article II constitutional authority as CinC occasionally pummel bad actors, tyrants, terrorists, genocidists etc. as long as he does not roll tanks. It has been common practice for long enough now that we ought to just be able to nod our heads and agree. I don't want any President to have to ask Congress if he can whack a terrorist camp, or send a friendly cruise missile reminder to bad guys. These things can help focus the bad guy's minds on consequences and therefore avoid actual open conflict."

The problem is that these are acts of war, whether legal or Constitutional or not, and the adversary isn't likely to parse the nuances, dontchaknow.

The flip side of that is that the typical adversary has likely been waging war on us already, on the quiet and on the cheap, and didn't ask our Congress for permission to do that either.

re: "War Powers"

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog *") is a pretty bright guy.

Here's his take:

"(T)here are two holes in the roof of Gaddafi's palace as I reported last night, but the US military now says that Gaddafi is not a target. This probably means that some component of the Tripoli air defense system was installed in or on the palace. Possibly there was a radar on the roof."

These were my thoughts exactly. After all, it's not been unknown, even in the U.S., to station elements of some sort of air defense arrangement on the grounds of presidential palaces, particularly during wartime. As time goes on, however, we're starting to see air strikes on items (tanks, boats) whose connection with enforcement of a no-fly-zone eludes me.

"The President claims the War Powers Resolution as the authorization for the gunboat style bombardment of Libyan air defense forces. I presume he uses Harvard Law School logic: the US is a signatory to the UN treaty. The UN has called for a no-fly zone in Libya. The US is obligated to carry out the mandates of the UN, because treaties are the supreme law of the land and rank with the Constitution. The War Powers Resolution gives the President the power to resist attacks on US forces. Any attempt to impose the no-fly zone would inevitably expose US forces to attack from Libyan air defenses, and therefore it would be absurd to send in US aircraft over Libya while those air defense forces are intact; therefore carrying out the UN resolution did expose US forces to attack, and therefore the preemptive strikes on Libyan air defense targets was within the powers given by the War Powers Resolution. QED."

Dr. Pournelle cuts right to the heart of this matter. It's not as if the U.S. doesn't have a window into the machinations of the U.N. Security Council. As I learned, long ago, when I used to do "model U.N." as a high schooler, the U.S. has a permanent seat on the Security Council. And the U.S. has a permanent veto power in that body as well. So when the U.N. Security Council tells us something, it's somewhat like whispering in our own ears.

"Note that there is in fact some validity to the President's logic as explicated above. (Note also that I made it up: this is not based on any official statement I know of.) If you grant that the US is obligated to respond to the UN resolution imposing a no-fly zone, then the rest certainly follows, and any President who sent in US forces without adequate preparation would and should be condemned. However: the US holds a veto over such UN resolutions, and in fact the US sought that resolution. The counter argument here is that a UN resolution cannot give the President of the United States power to make wars without the consent of Congress, and if the President believes the US is obligated to act when the UN mandates such an action, then he ought not consent to such a UN resolution without authorization of Congress. That, however, contradicts the almost universally approved doctrine that matters of foreign policy are pretty much the business of the President and the President alone, and while Congress and particularly the Senate may advise the President, neither Congress nor Senate have any veto over how the President uses the UN votes and veto powers." (Bold typeface added for emphasis - CAA)

"Usually when we debate the limits to the power of the president to make (as opposed to declare) war, it is already too late: we are in, and the Legions need our support. This time we are not yet in, and we have no particular obligations to anyone. A good time for a real debate on these matters.

As to my views, I have no objection to wringing Gaddafi's neck, but I do not believe that decision belongs to the President alone. This is a matter for the Congress of the United States to decide. The nature and quality of debates on this matter should be illustrative. They might even change people's opinions about the present leadership qualities in the United States."

Just so. The Libyan dictator isn't exactly on my Christmas card list. He's a bad guy, has the blood of American servicemen and civilians on his hands (and has had so for decades) and belongs on any clear-thinking American's "better off dead" list.

But when it comes to the Constitution, I'm something of a stickler for form. Let's do this right. As both my long-time readers here will be aware, I consider the Iraq War Resolution to have sufficed as a declaration of war for Constitutional purposes, so I'd have the same reasonably wide benefit of the doubt for something like that here.

re: "Frenchies Lead the Way"

Emperor Misha at The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler ("HQ of the Rottweiler Empire. An Affiliate of the VRWC.") has some common-sense rules which may apply to U.S. military intervention in (okay, over) Libya.

Money quote(s):

"(W)e have a few principles that we like to adhere to whenever that question comes up:

1) If you fuck with the U.S., you die. It may take a long time coming, but we don’t forget and we don’t forgive. You WILL die.

2) We always talk about our commitment to and support of freedom and democracy. We mean it too, so if you’re a fuckwit, genocidal tinpot tyrant who likes to mow civilians down with automatic weapons, you better look over your shoulder, pissant, because we’ll be coming and Hell rides with us.

3) Don’t fuck with us. If you choose to do so, see 1)."

re: "Some Questions For Advocates Of Intervention In Libya"

Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway ("an online journal of politics and foreign affairs analysis") relays George Will's excellent questions and declares:

"(B)efore we accept the arguments of those calling for yet another war in an Arab nation, we require them to answer these questions."

Mr. Will has a few more questions than the Powell Doctrine required.

What are they?

- The world would be better without Gaddafi. But is that a vital U.S. national interest? If it is, when did it become so? A month ago, no one thought it was.
- How much of Gaddafi’s violence is coming from the air? Even if his
aircraft are swept from his skies, would that be decisive?
- What lesson should be learned from the fact that Europe’s worst atrocity since the Second World War – the massacre by Serbs of Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica – occurred beneath a
no-fly zone
- Sen. John Kerry says: “The last thing we want to think about is any kind of military intervention. And I don’t consider the fly zone stepping over that line.” But how is imposing a no-fly zone – the use of military force to further military and political objectives – not military
intervention?
- U.S. forces might ground Gaddafi’s fixed-wing aircraft by destroying runways at his 13 air bases, but to keep helicopter gunships grounded
would require continuing air patrols, which would require the destruction of Libya’s radar and anti-aircraft installations. If collateral damage from such destruction included civilian deaths – remember those nine Afghan boys recently killed by mistake
when they were gathering firewood – are we prepared for the televised
pictures?
- The Economist reports Gaddafi has “a huge arsenal of Russian surface-to-air missiles” and that some experts think Libya has SAMs that could threaten U.S. or allies’ aircraft. If a pilot is downed and captured, are we ready for the hostage drama?
- If we decide to give war supplies to the anti-Gaddafi fighters, how do we get them there?
- Presumably we would coordinate aid with the leaders of the anti-Gaddafi forces. Who are they?
- Libya is a tribal society. What concerning our Iraq and Afghanistan
experiences justifies confidence that we understand Libyan dynamics?
- Because of what seems to have been the controlling goal of avoiding U.S. and NATO casualties, the humanitarian intervention – 79 days of bombing – against Serbia in Kosovo was conducted from 15,000 feet. This marked the intervention as a project worth killing for but not worth dying for. Would intervention in Libya be similar? Are such interventions morally dubious?
- Could intervention avoid “mission creep”? If grounding Gaddafi’s aircraft is a humanitarian imperative, why isn’t protecting his enemies from ground attacks?
- In Tunisia and then in Egypt, regimes were toppled by protests. Libya is convulsed not by protests but by war. Not a war of aggression, not a war with armies violating national borders and thereby implicating the basic tenets of agreed-upon elements of international law, but a civil war. How often has intervention by nation A in nation B’s civil war enlarged the welfare of nation A?
- Before we intervene in Libya, do we ask the United Nations for permission? If it is refused, do we proceed anyway? If so, why ask? If we are refused permission and recede from intervention, have we not made U.S. foreign policy hostage to a hostile institution?
- Secretary of State Hilary Clinton fears Libya becoming a failed
state – “a giant Somalia.” Speaking of which, have we not seen a cautionary movie – “Black Hawk Down” – about how humanitarian
military interventions can take nasty turns?
- The Egyptian crowds watched and learned from the Tunisian crowds. But the Libyan government watched and learned from the fate of the Tunisian and Egyptian governments. It has decided to fight. Would not U.S. intervention in Libya encourage other restive peoples to expect
U.S. military assistance?
- Would it be wise for U.S. military force to be engaged simultaneously in three Muslim nations?

-----

Hat tip to Barcepundit ("My English is not perfect? Well, it's not my mother tongue, so sue me! ").

re: "What's Involved In Setting Up A No-Fly Zone Over Libya? - DrewM."

Drew M. at Ace of Spades HQ is realistic about limitations on U.S. and Allied capabilities.

Money quote(s):

"From the military perspective, it's not impossible but it's not like we have a lot of extra capacity laying around in that part of the world."

Used to be we had something called a "fleet" on station in the Med, or do I mis-remember?

Even back in the "shores of Tripoli" days we'd have a squadron of frigates thereabouts.

"After surveying the help we might be able to get from our regional allies, CDRSalamander seems a bit more pessimistic about the available options."

"Would we give a station to our allies? Of the remaining
folks, GBR, ESP, & ITA have CVS, right? Well, the Brits don’t do CVS
counter-air anymore – and the Italians and Spanish carriers? How many sorties can they do? How about if they had a lot of land based fighter support? How many fighter aircraft need to be stationed at Sigonella supported by how many tankers to cover Tripoli? Same
question about Souda Bay and Benghazi. The British bases
on Cyprus?

UK officials said they could use of a British military air base in Akrotiri, Cyprus to enforce a no-fly mission. “Akrotiri would be very useful if we wanted to deploy,” said an official. “That would seem most logical.”Although fixed-wing aircraft appear to be depleted, British officials said the main concern was that Col Gaddafi could use helicopters to mount bombing raids on opponents."

"(T)he leader of the No Fly Zone idea is UK Prime Minister David Cameron. Good for him and all but it's rather hollow to hear this can of talk from the guy who has put the Royal Navy out of the power projection business.

Aircraft carriers are damn expensive to build, operate and man but they are damn handy things when you need one or three. We are at the bare minimum at the moment and as you can see, it's actually below the minimum."

As much as former dirt merchants like myself like to tweak my swabby friends about how carrier battle groups are something of a self-licking ice cream cone, they're darn useful things to have on the board when things like islands and air bases aren't conveniently located in terms of threats or operational areas.

"Gates talks a lot about how much is enough, especially in terms of carriers when no one else really has any to speak of. According to the Chief of Naval Operations, we need at least 2 to cover the Persian Gulf, 5th Fleet area alone for the foreseeable future. If you want to start cutting them, you better let the CNO and head of Central Command what operations you want them to stop doing. And oh yeah, when the shit hits the fan, don't ask, "Where are the carriers"?"

And if you need two carriers for the Persian/Arabian Gulf, basic logisitics means you need a third one. Multiply that by "the world" and the numbers needed start to climb. Then add in all the other surface and support ships needed to make a carrier task force more than one big target.

re: "Soft power, or flaccid power?"

"The Phibian" at Cdr Salamander ("Proactively “From the Sea”; leveraging the littoral best practices for a paradigm breaking six-sigma best business case in the global commons, rightsizing the core values supporting our mission statement via the 5-vector model through cultural diversity.") is always insightful with regards to the naval aspect.

Money quote(s):

"As an already dangerous nation started to disintegrate last week, I heard it first from Charles Krauthammer - the phrase that always comes up when something nasty turns towards our people or a national interest - "where are our carriers."I don't know about you, but I count this as a moment of national shame last week. The world's greatest naval power, its citizens in danger and need evacuation by sea - and our answer is ...."

Apparently the only U.S. warship in the entire Mediterranean Sea, and area I always to have a Fleet dedicated to it, was a destroyer, and one rather pre-occupied beyond mission parameters.

"I know the argument that the American military presence would be destabilizing - but I just say it is wrong headed in the extreme.

At this touchy moment - letss not even talk about which ship is where. What the Big E is doing and not. If there is a CSG and an ESG in the Gulf of Sidra or the Gulf of Mexico - or on liberty in Caan; it does not matter to the argument ... but we'll get to that later.

For an untold number of times, American citizens have relied on the Navy-USMC team to get them out of a country falling apart. Our citizens in Libya are lucky that things did not go south. Nod our heads and be thankful that we got lucky this time. Ask yourself why we did not have other ships out there, and know we are not alone.

I think the nations of the world are re-discovering the joys of having and effective navy - and the consequences of not having one."

As a consular officer, it's always been a source of reassurance to know that my Navy and Marine Corps colleagues had my back, especially since consular officers are virtually the last official Americans to be evacuated, occupied, as they/we are with assisting in the evacuation of American citizens.

"(I)f you ever wanted to create air supremacy - a no fly zone if you will - either to cover evacuations or to keep the Libyan runt Air Force from bombing their own people - there is only one way to do it - with Aircraft Carriers. Big deck aircraft carriers. Way to far for land based air even if you could get basing rights.

If you want to do it for any length of time, you need two at a minimum. Longer - three. Two American and one French would be nice. Two American and then perhaps Brit/Italian/Spanish as help would be."

It's an awfully big world out there. Since nearly the founding of the Republic, the U.S. Navy has helped ensure that freedom of the seas and of navigation meant something more than an aspiration. They've made it stick. But they can't do that from the Pentagon, from Norfolk or San Diego; they have to have hulls in the water and sailors to crew them.