re: "Khadafi's Box; Climate Change Experiment: anyone want to bet?"

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor (" The Original Blog and Daybook. ") expressed his misgivings about the U.S., er, NATO waging of war against Libya.

Money quote(s):

"They are now displaying Khadafi laid out on a child’s mattress stuffed into a freezer in a mall. Sic semper tyrannis, and it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy, but it does raise some problems of International Law.

The UN mandate to NATO and the US strike forces was to protect the civilian population of Libya from Kadaffi and his sons and his mercenaries and his tribal supporters and the Libyan fascisti who found his rule congenial. I don’t understand how shooting up his 40 vehicle convoy fleeing his home town was any larger threat to the civilian population of Libya than the 42 vehicle cavalcade in which President Obama is riding. Surely Qadafi wasn’t driving through shooting everyone he saw. Surely he was no threat to the civilians?" (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

The "responsibility to protect" figleaf seemed to quickly transmute into acting as the rebel militia's air force (and navy) in order to perform decapitating strikes and otherwise disrupt the dictator's command, control, and communications capabilities.

Nothing disrupts one's C3 ability like being dead, of course.

"Now of course I do not mourn Khaddaffi and his sons. But I do mourn blows to the Constitution of the United States, which clearly gives the Congress the power to declare war. We understand that the war powers are and must be ambiguous – particularly so in the thermonuclear ear. During the Cold War the President had the power to order the release of thousands of nuclear weapons in retaliation for an incoming strike to the United States. One of the problems I worked on was how to structure the chain of command – now just organizationally but physically – so that the counterstrike could happen without putting the power to begin Armageddon into the hands of a bored Captains and Lieutenants sitting in concrete bunkers in bases out near the end of nowhere; and how to train those Captains and Lieutenants to make it credible that they would, at need, launch those birds at need."

Not just captain and lieutenants, but staff sergeants and privates first class, as CAA has reason to recall.

"All those war and peace decisions in which a mistake could wipe out a significant portion of humanity — Herman Kahn asked, “Will the survivors envy the dead?” – all those decisions might have to be made in minutes. There wouldn’t be time for a Congressional debate or even to summon Congress into session. I do not believe that is true of Khadaffi, It seems to me that if we wanted to wage war on Khadaffi – and I certainly argue that shooting up his convoy, killing his sons and bodyguards, is close enough to war as to make no never mind – if we are to wage war on Qadhaffi then let the President go the Congress and explicitly say so. That is what the Constitution demands." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

CAA doesn't believe in standing too much on ceremony when it comes to declarations of war; it's not like there's a "e-Form" that can be completed online and then sent electronically to Congress. Any format and font will suffice so long as Congress tallies the yays and nays.

"I do not mourn the tyrant, and he go not more than he deserved, and less than he meted out to others. His sons were not such rapacious monsters as the Sons of Saddam Hussein are reliably said to have been, and I know those who argue that had power passed from the Colonel to one of his sons the result would not only have been good for Libya, but better than the Libyans will now get; but I do not know that my opinion is worth much. I do know that the tyrant of Syria must be frantically casting about trying to buy at least one nuke from North Korea. If he isn’t, he hasn’t thought out the situation."

Countries with their own nukes get respect; said "respect" being defined as not-invaded-or-attacked-by-other-nuclear-powers.

10/21

re: "Kandahar"

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog and Daybook") examined unintended longterm consequences.

Money quote(s):

"The average Army deployment is supposed to be one year, but the effective deployment period has been 15 months since 2007. That is a long time to be in a combat zone. In World War II once one was sent overseas it was generally for the duration, but there were some periods of relief from combat: not just R&R away from the front – there was, after all, a front – but in transport between operations. There were some secure zones in Italy and later in France, because by that time USAAF had established effective air superiority, and the civilian population wasn’t hostile. In Iraq and Afghanistan even our fortresses and enclaves are not really safe. Being in one of our enclaves is not quite the same as being in a trench in the Battle of the Sarne, but it is certainly more stressful than being in operations out on some lonely atoll during our Pacific war in 1943.

Stress and its results are among the costs of long wars fought with professional soldiers. Conscripts in a democracy generally can’t be kept deployed that long. Volunteer troops can be and are. Long term deployments in danger zones are stressful."

"But they volunteered!" is not an answer, nor does it cure the ills to which the flesh (and the mind) is vulnerable.

"I note that one of the answers given to Congressional inquiry on justifications for deployment of US troops without a formal declaration of war is international authorizations: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5zNwOeyuG84 Of course this has been true since the Korean War.

The American way of war has been all-out effort after a war is declared. That view was reinforced after our experiments in the Philippines – a nation building effort that was partially successful, but at a very high cost. “Let him never dream that his bullet’s scream went wide of its island mark, Home to the heart of his darling land where she stumbled and sinned in the dark.” We returned to the American War (sic) of War after that, but the return was eroded after Korea under what was perceived as the new international condition. The Cold War continued, but when it ended we found ourselves in the Balkans, with the troops unable to know who were the good guys, who the bad, or what the devil we were doing over there, and why the United States. We widened the gap with Russia, but for what object we never knew.

President George H W Bush rightly understood the costs of a long term involvement on the ground in the Middle East. I thought the first Gulf War a mistake – better we should spend the money developing our resources and winning independence from the Middle East – but at least we got in and got out again.

Then came the second Gulf War and the occupation of Iraq, followed by victory in Afghanistan and following that quick victory a long expedition without clear objectives." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Go big or go home.

This has been CAA's concern about Afghanistan (and Iraq) since before the Second Gulf War began: that the U.S. would engage in a long-term "nation building" effort in either or both places for which it simply does not have the national or political attention span to see to a successful conclusion.

3/12

re: "The "centrist" National Journal has a question"

Jeff G at Protein Wisdom ("because not just anybody can summarize the news") unleashed some snark in support of the War Powers Act.

8/23

re: "Success In Libya Does Not Justify An Unnecessary, Improper Decision By President Obama"

Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway ("an online journal of politics and foreign affairs analysis") wrote this last August and it still stands true.

Money quote(s):

"While the battle for Tripoli still rages, it is rather apparent at this point that the final collapse of the regime of Muammar Ghadafi is, if not totally destroyed, on its last legs and that his 42 year old one man dictatorship is at an end. Not surprisingly, that has led many people to the conclusion that President Obama’s decision to back the UN/NATO mission in Libya in March was justified because, well, it worked. While President Obama will get, and does deserve, some degree of credit for achieving the goal of overthrowing Gadhafi at a minimal cost to the United States in lives and money, however, none of that success eliminates the serious questions that were raised by the Obama Administration’s decision to intervene in Libya, and the manner in which they went about doing so."

No one disputes the president's authority, as commander-in-chief, to give order to the military in the absence of a Congressional authorization; there's a whole procedure worked out about this in the War Powers Act.

"Leaving aside the all-too-real possibility that Libya will descend into civil war and chaos and that we’ll be faced with a Somalia-like situation within striking distance of Europe and the shipping lanes of the Mediterranean Sea, one of the truly unfortunate dangers of the “success” in Libya is that it reinvigorates an interventionist argument whose credibility had been, thankfully, called into serious doubt by our decade-long involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan."

And:

"(N)either the United States nor NATO are going to suddenly go out on “humanitarian” missions when the risks are too high, which is why the people are Syria shouldn’t count on anyone coming to their aid any time soon, but all that really does is create an argument that justifies interfering in the internal affairs of other nations as long as they aren’t strong enough to actually fight back too hard. It’s neither moral, nor is it a proper use of American military force, which should primarily concern itself with the protection of the vital national interests of the United States." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Morality is actually something that the use of U.S. military force is, if not uniquely, somewhat unusual in having as a factor, historically speaking at least. It's a fundamental basis for the legitimacy of using military force, which is also based, but not solely, on legality.

"There was, to put it bluntly, no reason to involve ourselves in yet another military action at a time when our troops are already stretched to the limit thanks to two wars we’ve been fighting for ten years, one of which doesn’t seem to have any geographic limitation at all. There was no reason to spend money we don’t have to come to the rescue of allies who aren’t willing to make the investments necessary to protect our own interests. Most importantly, there was no reason to get involved in a conflict in which our own national interests were not implicated in any manner whatsoever."

There's an argument to made that the U.S. "got played" in fronting the heavy lifing for some of our NATO allies in this matter, which was neither within NATO's normal area of operations nor the consequence of responding to an attack on a NATO country.

"Finally, there are the serious legal and Constitutional questions raised by the President’s course of action in Libya. Instead of seeking approval from Congress for the Libya mission, President Obama relied solely on a series of United Nations Security Council Resolutions that authorized force for the sole purpose of protecting civilians. That justification quickly went out the window, though, and it became rather obvious from the start that the United States and NATO were primarily concerned with aiding the rebels, despite their questionable ties, not protecting civilians. While the Administration did notify Congress of the action as required by the War Powers Act, they failed to seek Congressional approval for the same and showed no inclination that they thought they needed to notwithstanding previous statements by the President and the Vice-President to the contrary. When the 60 day WPA time limit approached, they made the absurd argument that the United States was not engaged in “hostilities.” Of course, Congress is partly responsible here as well considering that they failed to take any steps to challenge the President’s clear violation of the law. Nonetheless, the President fought an illegal war, and the fact that it worked doesn’t justify that fact that he acted improperly."

8/23

re: "Obama's Absolutely Unbelievable Press Conference"

DrewM. at Ace of Spades HQ had a laundry list of observations.

They included:

"First...who is defending Gadaffi? No one.

Second...Remember when Obama demanded that Democrats like himself stop criticizing Bush over Iraq lest it send something other than "a unified message" to Saddam or al Qaeda in Iraq?

And finally...standing up for the constitutional role of Congress in matters of war and peace is a "cause célèbre". This is how the President of the United States views the constitutional responsibilities of a co-equal branch of government."

Old news in terms of NATO's Libyan intervention, but the war-powers issue isn't going to go away. It transcends the current administration and the roots of the current Constitutional dilemna reach back beyond the Gulf of Tonkin all the way to the Korean War.

6/29

re: "Hillary Clinton Questions Congress’s Patriotism Over Libya"

Jeff Emanuel at Redstate didn't think much of the secstate's question either.

Money quote(s):

"As the two houses of Congress debate resolutions that run the gamut from authorizing and limiting President Obama’s Libya action to defunding the Libya war altogether, and as the NATO begins to complement its ineffectiveness with internal discord, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is questioning her former legislative colleagues’ patriotism.

“Who’s side are you on?” she demanded today, lashing out at Congress while on an official visit to Jamaica"

Read the whole thing here.

re: "Hillary Clinton to Libya skeptics: ‘Whose side are you on?’"

Bryan Preston at The PJ Tatler ("To pull off the disguises of cunning, vanity, and affectation.") has some criticism of our secstate.


Money quote(s):


"(T)he Secretary of State is asking Congress, which is mostly just trying to remind the administration that it doesn’t have imperial powers to go to war whenever and wherever it feels like and no matter the cost or implications to national security, “Whose side are you on?” Way to bring people together, top diplomat!"

Politics ain't bean-bag. And this is/was politics.

_____

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit ("the intersection between advanced technologies and individual liberty").

re: "The Rocket's Red Glare of the Occasional Sortie...."

Deebow at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") is following U.S. war news in the foreign press (which means he receives information, not cheer-leading).

Money quote(s):

" "KABLUEY!" in a bad way would be the way I would describe how the current president is experiencing his military successes, particularly in Libya, where the rocket's red glare and the bombs bursting in air are currently giving way to Qaddafi's flag still being there."

Way back when Gulf War I was being televised on CNN, there was talk of how it all looked like a video game: grainy and detached, bloodless and antiseptic.

This also fostered an illusion of military omnipotence.

Sure. Our guys, and their gizmos, are good. But they're not all-powerful. And sometimes the biggest bang, even if properly applied, isn't going to result in the outcome you want.

Back when dinosaurs (and Soviets) roamed the Earth, your humble scribe learned a bit of wisdom working with nuclear weapons systems: There is a proper tool for every task.

Maybe NATO airstrikes aren't the perfect tool for this task. Oh, and what exactly are this task's objectives?

"(W)ith more word games from the State Department, and diplomats don't run combat operations for a very good reason, the bombs bursting in air is likely to continue" (Bold typefaced added for emphasis. - CAA.)

No offense taken, at least not by me, and I'm a lot closer by temprament and training to actually being able to run combat operations than most of my diplomatic peers. After all, it's not what diplomats are either trained or selected/promoted to do. Nor should they be.

"(T)here is no such thing as a "passive" exchange of fire, if you don't believe me, look it up in your PIO reference guide or your protocol handbook, but since you might not have time because you are tying yourself in knots trying to explain this, I will clear it up for you; anytime you are dropping bombs on someone, you are "actively" exchanging fire. Just because they don't shoot back, it doesn't change the nature of the transaction..."

Good point. Valid point, simply put. (Perhaps this isn't something covered in law school.)

"This is what happens when you lead from the rear, and if our mission continues to be murky and gets continually redefined between noninformative press conferences, then all of the two bit, tin pot dictators in the world will know that they are safe for at least the next 16 months, because we can't seem to kill the one in Libya, if that is our mission.

And what does this say about our word in the world? Qadaffi did what he is supposed to by coming forward and admitting his WMD programs and cooperating with the US during the last administration, and for that he was rewarded by having bombs dropped on him once per day, maybe. Kind of like teaching your dog to sit and then when he does it, you beat him for it. Any of you egghead diplo-dummies over at State want to explain to me how this perverted form of carrot/stick theory works?" (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

CAA apparently lacks sufficient egg-headedness to tackle the writer's request. From my obviously under-informed and inexperienced perspective, this last seems like precisely the reverse of the message we should be sending to governments thinking about a little (or a lot) bit of nuclear proliferation, like, for instance, Iran.

The phrases "counter-intuitive" and "designed to fail" come to mind.

Of course, not being a Middle East-specialist, I can make assertions like "we're doing it exactly wrong" (and not be taken seriously).

"The debate over whether the WPA applies or doesn't apply or whether it passes constitutional muster is something that will continue to go on, but as I have talked about before, consistency is a habit of the successful and makes your leadership believable. If the president says he needs Congress to buy off on attacking Iran, then he better say the same damn thing about attacking anywhere else as well."

This is true only if consistency is valued by leaders. Consistency will be valued by leaders only if they are rewarded for it. If they are rewarded despite inconsistency, then the opposite outcome will result.

re: "War Powers hypocrisy plus incompetence equals..."

Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") hasn't been impressed with much of what passes for strategic thinking in recent years.

Money quote(s):

"(I)t is entirely fair to note that the plan for the post-invasion phase was mind-numbingly foolish. And yes that blame lies squarely at the feet of Donald Rumsfeld. I skipped meeting him when he was pimping his book at the recent Milblog conference and I think he has failed to properly accept the fact that his idea of a central government in a tribal and honor culture was beyond naive absent a tyrant like Saddam to crush any dissent. That plus staffing the effort with a collection of country club wankers and the dumbass cousins of big Republican donors apporoaches criminality. And yes I am calling most of the folks who ran the immediate aftermath incompetent. If you happened to be one of them and don't think that describes you, then think of the two people on either side of you when you were there. Two of the three of you ought to have stayed home to entertain Buffy and Muffy and Tad."

Two points:

The first: I never did get the feeling that "Phase IV" was ever fleshed out beyond the initial PowerPoint (TM) slide that mentioned it. It was underwear-gnomes on steroids. Hope very definitely was the plan, with a side order of wishful thinking.

The second: even the language qualified folks whom State lent to the CPA ("Can't Produce Anything") really weren't the ones who should have been sent. Great guys, generally, some of whom I count as friends, but at that point in their careers they were simply too junior, and too inexperienced, to accomplish much more than not getting killed.

A decade on, and these same officers probably, knowing now what they didn't yet know then, would have made a huge difference. Strangely, the qualified and experienced officers then were not the ones who were sent. Odd, that.

For some reason, that reminds me of a phrase I had to invent to explain a lot of what I saw during OIF 1, i.e.,: "Resourced to fail."

"(W)e have a mission.... now entering its third month without the defining characteristic of a mission.....a freaking goal. We are bombing Libyan warships, its capital and trying to "accidentally" kill the damn tyrant we don't have the stones to publicly call out. All the while Syria slaughters its citizens, Iran builds away on the Islamic bomb and O rewards the Palestinians for forming a unity government that, apparently, still thinks those pesky Jooooos could use a bath in the sea."

Many's the time in the course of my military and governmental careers that I've had to perservere onward, and as a leader persuade others to do the same, in the hope that while certain decisions might not make sense at the ground level, the people making the decisions had a lot more information available to them than was available to us, the big picture as it were. Perhaps that was hoping against hope.

"I believe that the War Powers Act is likely un-constitutional, but I believed that when Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and even Obama were President. That is a principled stance"

So it is.

re: "The Media Turns On Obama, And My Head Is Spinning"

Thanks to TSB at The Skeptical Bureaucrat ("Giving my fellow Americans the view from my cubicle") for the link and the mention:

"I've been following Consul-at-Arms and cheering as he defends the Constitutional powers of Congress against the administration's interpretation dismissal of the War Powers Act."

I'd quibble about my defending Congress, exactly. I feel like I've been as critical of Congress (for not defending its Constitutional perogatives) as I've been of the executive branch for continuing to push the envelope of its own Constitutional perogatives.

Money quote(s):

"President Obama started the Libyan action with a March 21 letter to Congress that cited the requirements of the War Powers Act ("I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action") but, when the May 20 deadline for withdrawal approached, he changed his mind about those requirements.This morning, as I caught up on my reading, I saw that both the New York Times and the Washington Post have attacked the administration's position that the War Powers Act no longer applies to its military action in Libya. The Mainstream Media in a united front with CAA? I must be dreaming." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

He had to take a lie down until the dizziness passed.

re: "BLOG COMMENT OF THE DAY"

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit ("very little independent factual reportage") shares his selection, with commentary:

"The President gets to make these calls. Of course, when the President makes this sort of a call, in a war that never had any sort of Congressional approval, it’s pretty risky — or, if you prefer, “gutsy” — but that choice is the President’s to make, and the political risks are his to run."

re: "Obama and the War Powers deadline"

Crush at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") has both clarity and a suggestion for lawmakers.

Money quote(s):

"Section 1544(b) of the War Powers Resolution states that "the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces" at the end of the 60-day period unless Congress:

1.declares war or authorizes the use of force
2.extends the deadline
3.is unable to meet as a result of armed attack

I am not a lawyer, but 1,2, or 3 have not happened.

If the will of the people was to fight in Libya, either due to threatened interests or some internationalist Responsibility to Protect doctrine, Congress would have authorized force or declared war. Since they didn't, the campaign should be over. Just as you or I can't pick and chose which laws we will obey, the president can't either."

Just like consular officers don't get to pick and choose about implementing citizenship and immigration laws, so is the president similarly constrained.

However.....

There are such things as co-equal branches of the federal government, presidential authorities, and the like. There's a balance of power. The president has powers and authority as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, but not unlimited power in that regard. Just where the line gets crossed is a bit blurry, particularly the last few decades, and the War Powers Act may actually have made things worse, even as it attempted to both bind the president and to delegate some power back over to him.

"(W)hat Congress needs to do now is to craft clear and concise laws instead of the problematic War Powers Resolution. What is a "war?" What does it mean to "declare" war? What constitutes an "enemy?" These should be black-and-white answers and not subject to debate. Therefore, future adventurist presidents will be constrained from sending troops in instances where U.S. security and interests are not threatened."

I'm not sure if some of this is even Constitutional. Can Congress (or the president, or the supreme court) go ahead and attempt to define or refine Constitutional provisions by statute rather than through the amendment process? It seems to me that the War Powers Act tries (and fails) to do that already.

re: "The Last Fig Leaf of the Legality of This War in Libya Falls Off Today"

Aaron Worthing at Patterico's Pontifications ("Harangues that Just Make Sense") reiterates for those just tuning in.

Money quote(s):

"(T)his war was illegal from day one. Follow that link if you want to read my analysis of it. But the short version is this. Under the War Powers Act, the president does not have the ability to start a war without congressional consent. Period. The sixty-day provision only applies to when we are attacked. And if you think that this law is unconstitutional, then that doesn’t make it better—it makes it worse. His power under the Constitution is less than under the War Powers Act."

Congress is paying attention now, and getting a little bit persnickity at this blatant (it just doesn't do to rub Congress' nose in something this baldly) usurpation of Constitutionally-assigned (and Congressionally-delegated, but only up-to-a-point!) powers. And, in its glacial, ponderous way, is signalling that it'll have to get around to doing something about it if some political figleaf isn't provided by the president.

re: "Will the White House ignore the War Powers Resolution?"

Josh Rogin at The Cable ("Reporting Inside The Foreign Policy Machine") asked some questions in May that are starting to get answers.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he Obama administration will reach the 60-day limit on how long it can wage war in Libya without congressional authorization, as spelled out in the War Powers Resolution of 1973. But does the administration, or for that matter Congress, even care?"

&

"(A)ny one senator can invoke the War Powers Resolution, which would force the Senate to debate the issue. Several Senate offices are scrambling now to figure out exactly how the law would be invoked, but the most likely scenario would be for one senator to raise a budget point of order, which would seek to cut off all funding for war operations in Libya immediately, thus kicking off the debate."

This is now all starting to come to a head, despite assorted punditry claiming that nothing would come of it, that Congress would just roll over, and that the War Powers Act is a dead letter.

Apparently not.

Let me state for the record that I support the idea of Col. Qadhafi leaving his self-annointed and self-appointed office as Libya's maximum leader, either feet first or otherwise.

Col. Qadhafi is no friend to the United States, to peace, or even to civilization as we know it. The blood of Americans is on his hand, has been for years, and may very well be again. Upon his head be the consequences.

I have my doubts about the wisdom of the timing and about the foreign policy aspects of how U.S. participation in NATO's current intervention came about, but that's all within the president's purview as the president (and thus America's chief diplomat). He gets to decide these things, it's in the job description and everything.

If you don't like it, the only way you get a (lawful) say in the matter is if you vote in the next presidential election (assuming you're a U.S. citizen and a registered voter) or if you're a member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

I've never been that big a fan of the War Powers Act. Bad cases make bad law, as they say, and the Vietnam War left the United States with the War Powers Act as a legal legacy.

The War Powers Act attempts to square the circle and allow us to believe two impossible things before breakfast. It's arguably unConstitutional, but that argument has never been tested (to destruction?) in the courts. President's have given it enough backhanded respect to avoid a Constitutional crisis over Congress' war-declaring authority; until now.

re: "It's War!"

Andrew at Abu Muqawama ("following issues related to comtemprary insurgencies as well as counterinsurgency tactis and strategy") has a definite opinion.

Money quote(s):

"I'm no lawyer, I'll admit, but I do know thing or two about shooting wars, having been in a few and having studied others, and the conflict in which we have intervened in Libya is most certainly a war. The reason why the Obama Administration's legalistic determination that it is not a war is ridiculous is not because we've gotten to the point where we care most about which lawyers were smarter than other lawyers but because it does not pass the "common sense test" or "laugh test" of most Americans."

&

"(T)his latest episode, which to most Americans I suspect looks like a bunch of eggheads arguing about how many bombs you have to drop for it to be "hostilities" and, while they're at it, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, is simply one of the stupidest things I've read in some time. It does not pass the laugh test, and the administration has handed an empty net to anyone looking to score points off of this."

re: "Rule of law watch: Does Barack Obama have a fool for a client?"

Tigerhawk ("thoughts of the day on international affairs, politics, things that strike us as hilarious and personal observations") remarks on the first stage of some recent opinion shopping.

Money quote(s):

"Long-standing fans of the back-and-forth will remember the enormous grief that the Bush administration got for following the opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel, particularly on the question of enhanced interrogation (or, if you are a liberal, "torture"). The accusation was, more or less, that the OLC's incumbent, John Yoo, was turning analytical cartwheels to arrive at the result that Dick Cheney wanted. Well, it turns out that on the question of the Libya war, Barack Obama overruled the OLC." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

&

"(I)t is "extraordinarily rare" for a president to overrule the OLC -- prior to Barack Obama, the last president to do it was FDR. Obama has now done it twice. Perhaps the president has such confidence in his own legal acumen that he does not need no stinkin' OLC approval."

re: "In Case Anyone Cares, Obama Is Fighting What Is Actually, Demonstrably an "Illegal War" "

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ gets this about ninety-percent correct.

Money quote(s):

"The scheme of the War Powers Act is that a president can make war, absent authority, for sixty days. Once that sixty day limit is reached, he must begin winding down the effort as soon as possible, and must end all confrontation (even of the retreat/withdrawal under fire type) thirty days after that.

Now, the President can of course seek authorization for war in that sixty day window, in which case the Constitution is satisfied and the War Powers Act no longer applies.

The President has not sought any resolution or authorization. Has not even sought it."

There are some exceptions to this, such as when U.S. forces or territory come under attack.

According to the Library of Congress: "the President's powers as Commander in Chief are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization from Congress, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States (50 USC Sec. 1541)."

"Clinton did the same thing with Bosnia. So this isn't the first time.

Odd that only Republican Presidents need to, and do in fact, seek resolutions of war, while the Democrats who scream the loudest about this part of the Constitution (one of the few they like) just ignore it again and again.

Obama's theory (as was Clinton's) is that because this is being fought "by NATO," then it's not... what, war? I don't get this."

It's always been my understanding that the U.S. was a fully-vested, voting member of NATO. And that the current supreme commander in NATO is a U.S. Navy admiral.

"Most nations go to war as part of an alliance of some kind. They always have. They likely always will.

Where does this idea spring from that when a Democrat wants to go to war without constitutional authorization, he can point to whatever countries he's in alliance with and say "I know the Constitution says I need an authorization of war, but look, I've got Martinique on my side, Hoss. Gold standard." "

&

"I(t) doesn't bloody matter what organization is nominally in charge of a war, or what combination of countries you're allied with. The Constitution does not say that you need either a declaration of war or France has your back.

There is one statement. It applies to all circumstances. It doesn't matter if we're doing it on behalf of the UN, NATO, the G-8, the NAFTA trade zone, SEATO, or fuck-all else."

re: "The Problem is Not the War Powers Act"

Howie at The Jawa Report ("sand people; get it?") does some crystal-ball gazing.

Money quote(s):

"Gadhafi is making Obama and NATO look like a bunch of damned fools."

&

"The Libyan rebels are obviously melting away, waiting on NATO to do the dying for them. At this rate this will go on forever. And I'm getting damn tired of figuring out how to spell Momar's name every day.

So its all that and the War Powers Act. Without the congress Gadhafi can hang like a millstone around Obama's neck through Nov. 2012."

re: "Obama Killed The War Powers Act? No, Congress Did"

Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway ("an online journal of politics and foreign affairs analysis") analyzed an analysis from the Washington Post.

Money quote(s):

"Ackerman and Hathway make the same mistake that many people wh(o) analyze this issue do in that they view the Presidency’s power grab int he area of war powers as a completely one sided matter. They forget that there is more than one branch of the Federal Government. As I noted when the debate over the Libyan engagement began (which was roughly an hour after the President announced it), Congress has nobody to blame but itself for the fact that Presidents have essentially written them out of the war powers process over the past 60 years"

Mr. Mataconis also made an on-target criticism whose underlying basis changed just this week past.

"With but a few notable exceptions, two of which happen to share the last name Paul, no Senator or Congressman of either party has stood up and said anything over the past two months about the President’s decision to commit American military forces to action in a nation that did not attack us and poses no threat to us or our interests, in a conflict where we still aren’t even sure if the “rebels” are any better than the government they’re trying to overthrow. Nobody in Capitol Hill with the power to do so has help hearings on the engagement, or suggested that the matter be put to a vote in the House and the Senate."

He concluded:

"The problem is what this means for the future. Once again, Congress has abdicated in the face of a Presidential power grab and that means that, in the future, this President and his successors will feel much more free to act without considering either the desires, or the existence, of Congress. One day, maybe Congress will wake up and realize what’s happened, and when they do they will only need to look in the mirror to find the party responsible for this disaster."

re: "White House’s ‘Libya Isn’t A War-War’ Defense Not Going Over Well In Congress"

Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway ("an online journal of politics and foreign affairs analysis") describes the push-back by Congress.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he Obama Administration responded to Congressional demands for more information regarding the mission in Libya by saying that the War Powers Act doesn’t apply because American forces are not engaged in hostilities in or near Libya. Not surprisingly, that explanation has not gone over well among Congressional critics of the Administration’s policy"

"(T)he House may consider cutting off funding for the Libya mission if the Administration does not further clarify its position"

IIRC, that's kind of what the Constitution envisions in a situation like this.

"The White House, meanwhile, has basically said it doesn’t intend to respond any further to the House"

Yeah, ignoring Congress is a win-win of a strategy. (Oh wait: I meant just the opposite.)

"(W)e may be headed for some kind of real confrontation between the House and the White House over the mission in Libya. Frankly, it’s already gone further than I expected. Usually, Congress just rolls over and plays dead on these sorts of things but it’s clear that the hyperpartisan atmosphere in Washington, combined with the fact that the Libya mission remains decidedly unpopular, have emboldened Boehner and others to actually take a stand here.

If that’s the case, I’m glad to see it. It’s been far too long, since the passage of the War Powers Act really, that Congress has acted in any decisive manner to try to reign in the Executive Branch’s power grabs in the war making department. Regardless of the outcome of this particular policy dispute, the fact that Congress, or at least part of it, is acting with some backbone here is a welcome sight, especially in light of the specious reasoning that the Administration uses in its report."

Not to be too hung-up on process when results do matter, but since the only oaths or vows I've ever publicly sworn have been (in order) to the Constitution and to Madame-At-Arms, I take Constitutional processes pretty seriously. (That's just how I roll.) But let's look at results as well:

Qahdafi has been on my better-off-dead list since at least the 1980's. He's just that bad of a "blackhat." But realities of international politics and diplomacy have meant that we've let him stay alive lo all these intervening decades.

Pres. Bush (#43) even managed to get the guy, after publicly naming Libya as part of the Axis of Evil and then taking down Saddam's Iraq in about a week, to give up his WMD programs and start playing responsible adult (as much as the murderous tyrant was capable of portraying, anyhow).

So going on the warpath and trying to take out Qahdafi (while saying we're doing something else, but that's another argument) just doesn't make sense to me from an American perspective. Does. Not. Compute. Arab Spring or no, we had Muammar Qahdafi in the box we wanted him in, not troubling us and not looking to trouble us.

And now, any other dictator with WMD has got to wondering how it's to his benefit to give that up.

So how does this make sense?

"(T)he idea that the President can engage in hostilities with a nation that has not attacked us and poses no threat to our interests, and then fund the military war without Congressional appropriations seems to defy any reasonable reading of the Constitution."

I'm pretty good at reading comprehension (less so reading-between-the-lines) and I concur with Mr. Mataconis' assessment