I hope that many of you already know that this has been a spring of renewal, rebellion, and liberation across the Middle East. A vision of democracy for all is growing. The first great success (Yemen can't count yet) came with the Egyptian revolt led by the middle class, educated citizens who desired a voice in their government..... sound familiar??
The current lead story on this theme is the nation of Libya. Libya is NOT where slaves moved to in the 1800s (that was Liberia....).
So I want us to consider two topics this week.
First: What do we do about Libya? How should we help? What should NATO do? And, what is the role of the U.S.?
Second, because this is a NATO peace-keeping mission, and not a war- what is this current debate over whether or not Congress needed to authorize troop deployment?
Please view this clip:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/vp/43455360#43455360
Then read these articles:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/politics/16powers.html?ref=africa
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/06/19/libya-says-nato-airstrike-hits-residential-area/
Now, consider the two questions. It is important that you respond to both and don't mix the facts. Be clear on what should be done about Libya. Then, be clear about what the relationship should be with NATO, the White House, and Congress. Have opinions!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
78 comments:
FOR QUESTION #1
Let me start by saying there is no one "correct" way to deal with the Lybia situation. A solution that seems the best may not be available with the current level of resources, or is fraught with difficulties and snags. My opinion is simply that; it may (and probably will) be poked with holes.
With that said, one must consider all parts of the situation in order to come to one, complete solution. We must recognize that, however unpopular we may be, we are still looked up to as a source of militaristic and economic power. Obviously, with other countries vying for the power that the USA has, it is necessary to keep up that image. NATO, an organization founded on the principles America holds firm, also finds it necessary to keep up the illusion that they are the same mighty force they once were. However, as far as NATO is concerned, they should finish out this mission and the dissolve. The Soviet Union is no more, so its original purpose has been fulfilled. Why keep NATO up? It's embarassing itself with its multiple friendly-fire attacks. NATO doesn't have the standing or the funds to continue being a band-aid organization.
The whole idea of keeping face in a growing world of unrest is a big motive for staying involved in Libya. So is protecting the lives of civilians. For some reason, I can't help but fear there is an alteriative motive for the Lybia involvement (cough-oil--haven't we learned anything after Vietnam and Bush's claim of WMD?). Nevertheless, a humanities-based mission is still an important one, even if the results are not as beneficial. The USA has always been a proponent of political and cultural freedoms, so it stands to reason we should live up to our aims by taking part. The rebels were doing much better when America's air support was involved.
However, we as a country are without a set goal, and that hampers what we can do for support. This prevents any "victory" from happening. If our goal is removing Gaddafi, then remove him: bomb his compound! If our purpose is to protect civilians, then we allow NATO to take that task (consdering their bombing strikes don't do much more than that). We must do what we plan to do.
Honestly, I'm tired of only hearing about Lybia on national news. If we consider Gaddafi our main reason for involvement, then I suggest we send ground troops, attack Tripoli from the air, and be done with it. Blockade ports, etc. Do what has to be done, and be finished! If we are content with a humanity mission, then we have to also be content with Gaddafi in power.
For the purpose of this blog assignment, NATO should continue the effort in Lybia; once the "peace effort" is over, it must dissolve. We have the UN for peace missions. NATO has overstayed its welcome in world affairs. Our country must find our priority and stick with it. Otherwise, we'll sit spinning our wheels and we'll spend money on stupid aspects in the conflict. Once we have our priorities straight, then we return to the conflict. This would require a resolution from Congress. Or, if we do not want to send troops, then send supplies (food, weapons--not money). The options are numerous. Our role in this conflict is bigger than we originally wanted. We lead by example. Our actions will guide our allies' actions, which will ultimately determine how this conflict/civil war will end.
FOR QUESTION #2
I needed a whole new blog entry to deal with this question (as the computer promptly laughed when I tried to combine the two).
According to the official US government document updated in 2003 (to deal with the conflict in Iraq), the War Powers Act allowed the President as Commander- in-Chief
"to introduce U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities are exercised only pursuant
to (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency
created by an attack on the United States or its forces. It requires the President in every
possible instance to consult with Congress before introducing American armed forces into
hostilities or imminent hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or other specific congressional authorization."
"Why is this important?" you might ask. The definition of "pursuant" is "following; going in pursuit." We have not declared war on Libya, nor were we attacked by them, especially to the extent it created a national emergency. According to many, Congress did not pass a statuatory authorization for action in Libya. Therefore, under every technicality, the use of military involvement in Lybia for other reasons tan those approved in the UN mandate is illegal.
With this, the question of the extent of a peace mission comes to mind. The UN on C-Span a few months ago approved an intervention in Libya on the basis it would prevent innocent civilians from getting attacked by Gaddafi. It said nothing about going after the Libyan leader or continuing hostilities after the mission was accomplished. Civilians are safe (despite NATO). So, the UN mandate allowed NATO to create this protection, not help the rebels--nothing more. Therefore, any additional action, logically, would be left to the discretion of the individual countries involved. The USA's actions are then controlled by Congress. Congress did not do anything in terms of legislation, and we were not faced with a national emergency. I repeat: any additional involvement, assuming we do nothing in Congress from this moment, is illegal. Technically, it all was illegal. Congress needed to authorize troop deployment.
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/19134.pdf
Please ignore the multiple spelling errors of "Lybia" in my first post. I realized the error afterward. Be this a lesson to all: be wary of the "copy/paste"--you spell something wrong and then paste it further down, you are destined for ruin. :)
Again, my apologies.
As Bill pointed out, there truly is no solid, "correct" way to handle the situation or any complicated issue in politics. Particularly considering our economic interests in the area and the political finger-pointing caused by the way the Egyptian rebellion was handled (or rather not handled), it seems no solution truly resolves or satisfies the demands made on the States.
The United States has declined significantly as a world power in the past decade, however as Bill points out, it is still the military god of war, especially respected because it is not only a militarily capable country, but even more because it is a stable democracy. For these reasons we have a responsibility to do something about these events; as Spiderman said, "With great power comes great responsibility."
On the other hand, I think it is important to remember that the United States is no longer in a financially stable position capable of sustaining potentially protracted and increasing aid to every repressed nation on earth - once we give military aid to one rebellion, can you imagine the outcry if we were to refrain from giving it to the others? The reputation of our democracy would not be enough to cover this. With that in mind, we must approach these happenings with caution.
I believe that the best way to handle the Libyan crisis is to send limited munitions aid to the rebels, offer asylum to their citizens, and provide aid through organizations like the Peace Corps and the Red Cross, along with moral support. We cannot appear apathetic, however to commit extensively militarily or economically is, in my opinion, unwise - our economy is too unstable and the political situation at home is too heated to support the long term consequences should the war continue or more rebellions arise. We do not want another Vietnam, however much we sympathize with the cause of the rebels.
In regards to question 2, the debate centers around whether or not the President had the authority to authorize troop deployment without the required participation of Congress over a protracted period of time. The administration's defense is that the military involvement was not large enough to constitute an act of war or hostility, and thus was not subject to Congressional limitation. In my opinion, any time our President sends our troops overseas and risks American lives actively fighting an enemy (in this case the regime), there is an act of hostility and Congress must be consulted. Although the limiting law also has political implications, one of the main purposes is to ensure that the President cannot arbitrarily risk American lives in a conflict that might not be in our best interest. This is what the administration has done. An American life is an American life, conflict is conflict, and a war is a war whether 15 are killed or 15,000 are killed. I understand that some things demand instant action, but the time for accountability has passed and we have little explanation. I do not believe the President has the right to risk a single American life, justified or not, without the agreement of necessity by our other elected representatives.
John Gennaro:
The current conflict in Libya is clearly in a dead lock state. Forces are being used to try and help end Gaddafi‘s reign but also, these forces are restricted in such ways as no ground troops are permitted to enter Libya. If the effort is to stop Gaddafi and end the conflict in Libya, than the most simple of solutions would be to stop these restrictions and end it quickly with aerial and ground forces being put into use. If the lives of civilians are the main priority instead of defeating Gaddafi, than allow place the issue in NATO’s hands. However, Gaddafi is a threat and I believe producing one huge attack on Tripoli without any restrictions and continuing to send supplies to the rebels will end the conflict in Libya in a very short amount of time.
NATO should continue its involvement in the conflict in Libya, however little it is, because it still adds a little aid to the United States. I believe once this issue in Libya has concluded NATO should no longer be part in world affairs and therefore dissolve. This organization is underfunded and overlooked, acting as nothing more than an as an embarrassment of the United States effort to showcase its might and principles. The organization should continue to help but it has definitely over stayed its welcome in world affairs.
The role of the United States is and has always been freedom and prosperity for all. The United States is always first to get involved when it comes to unjust actions occurring in other countries. This is usually because of alternate reasons besides trying to spread peace and freedom such as, fear of communism spreading in the Vietnam and Korean War or even the fear of gas prices increasing in more present day conflicts. Even though the United States may not be in the conflict to only end Gaddafi’s reign, it is playing the role of a huge economic and political power trying to help promote political and cultural freedom in the Middle East.
The current debate on the home front of the United States is whether or not Obama and his Administration can continue the conflict in Libya without the consent of Congress. However, this conflict can only be justified for a given amount of time (60-90 days) and when this limit is reached Congress has the power to terminate the operation. Obama and his Administration have prolonged the effort in Libya and the time limit has been surpassed. Their justification of these actions is that the military involvement of the United States was not large enough to be considered an act of war and therefore doesn’t need the approval of Congress. I would personally be okay with this justification, but American lives have been lost and the public has been poorly informed of the conflict. Americans have died and are dying in this “peace effort” and the approval of our elected officials of something that is putting American lives at stake seems to be the right thing to do.
Question 1:
I agree with both Laura and Bill that there is not really a specific way that we can deal with Libya. We should try our best to help the citizens and to keep them out of the crossfire. The United States is a world power and we should act as one, helping those that ask and or need it. We have an image to uphold and to do so we must assist other countries the best that we can. The USA has mostly tried their best to help anyone who needs it, so how can we refuse it to Libya? If we do, then more conflict will arise. As for NATO, Im not sure that I see the point on keeping it running. If it is continuously killing innoccent citizens and doesn't seem to be actually making any progress, then why is it still active? NATO isn't helping by bombing citizens and to be truthful its just making itself look worse and worse. NATO has done all that it can and should be kept out of this situation. It isn't helping.
How should we help? Well, we should try our best to do whatever we can even if we can only do a little. Aid should be sent to citizens and they should be assisted as much as possible. If this is all that we can do then I believe that it should be done. Better little than nothing. But, money should be kept here. Our economy is not in the state to send loads of money to a foreign country. Food and weapons should be our main shipment. As for Ghadaffi, we need to decide whether or not we want him to stay in office or to blow him sky high. Argument is good for only so long and I think that a decision needs to be made sooner than later. If Ghadaffi is the issue than he must be dealt with.
Question 2:
Troop deployment? Ugh, such a touchy topic. I thought that we were to have our troops out of the Middle East by now, but guess not. I don't think that deploying troops to Libya is the answer. We have enough Americans dying overseas and to send more is not what the American public is wanting. Also, a big issue of whether the President even has the authority to send troops and to declare war is being discussed. Of course Americans have always been willing to fight for their country, but as Laura pointed out, for a good cause with justification. If troops are to be sent over to Libya, then the President needs a good reason and Congress must be consulted. No American soldier should die without cause or knowledge of why they were sent over to a strange country and forced to fight. President Obama needs to discuss with Congress troop deployment and they need to figure out what is constitutional or not.
RE Maddie:
There should be no debate on this issue: the troop deployment to begin with was illegal and unconstitutional. Obama sidestepped Congress in the matter, but the War Powers Act requires one of three prerequisites. The one we are most concerned with is the fact there was no specific statuatory authorization from Congress. The President could only send in troops for 60-90 days after Congress approval.
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/19134.pdf
However, I agree with everything else that you said.
Question 1:
The situation in Libya has become a very controversial issue, especially between different sectors of the government. As it has been previously pointed out, there isn't necessarily a "correct" way to deal with the situation.
I agree with Laura in the sense that the United States is still viewed as a significant military power, as well as a successful example of democracy, at least under the definition that we have come to know. It has been made very clear that the way the United States is involved has nothing to do with warfare, only attempting to assist the rebel forces.
I believe that it is important that the United States and NATO reach out to Libya in terms of peace offering and medical assistance. However, if NATO is just going to continue dropping bombs, I don't really see a justifiable reason for their involvement in the issue to continue. Financially, the United States is in no place to offer economic assistance, but as a country we are still viewed as a world power, even though this status has been declining, and it is expected of us to help countries in need. I believe that sending Red Cross and providing a considerable amount of protection to those that truly need it is very important. Now protection can mean more than one thing. Weapons are obviously one way to go, which can help the rebels to defend themselves. Any other form of protection is difficult to provide at this point because ground troops are not allowed in Libya, but I think that it is important to provide moral support as well as opportunities for asylum. That being said, we don't have a stable enough economy to be sending or offering much else to those in Libya at this point. The responsibility of helping countries in need has been sort of assigned to us, but we also need to keep the needs of our own country and our own citizens in mind. We can still offer help, but it needs to be in moderation.
Question 2:
The main issue of the debate is whether or not the President had the authority to authorize troop deployment without the required participation of Congress, which arose over the War Powers Act. It has been said that the actions taking place over in Libya are not considered war involvement, in regards to the United States. The real issue is that the president did not consider one of the prerequisites before deciding to deploy troops. One of the main reasons that this has become so controversial is because no one can agree on whether the War Powers Act really applies to the situation because a large number of people involved do not consider the U.S. to be involved in a war in this particular country.
RE: Bill
Right. The President does not have the authority to send in troops. I was merely talking about if troops are decided to be sent in. But you are correct. My apologies.
Question 1:
What does the United States do about Libya? Well, the first thing that needs to happen is a cease-fire between Obama and Congress over the authorization and deployment of troops. The focus needs to be on what physically has to happen in Libya, not how we got there, because it’s too late to argue about that. We’ve already established how America isn’t the country that it used to be in terms of economic strength and willingness to maintain its reputation by means of spending whatever was necessary to upkeep its image, so, sending money to Libyans isn’t a suitable option. Providing food, arms, and support however, is. As Laura pointed out, by making organizations available like the Red Cross or other helping-hand agencies, Americans would literally be providing aid, rather than sending monetary support. By doing this, the US can still hold the reputation of supporting countries in need, while not blindly offering money; instead, support.
Here, the role of the United States is simply the definition of its country: freedom. The US is involved in Libya to support this peacekeeping operation and encourage political freedom in a country that is struggling under a dictator.
NATO went into Libya with a military goal of protecting civilians; they haven’t been doing a terribly good job. According to the New York Times article, NATO and its allies have expressed a shift in goals from simply defending those civilians to attempting to force Gaddafi from power. The recent bombing raids have been highly ineffective in achieving this goal. NATO needs to choose one goal, and get it over with- Take down Gaddafi, or protect the civilians. If they are trying to accomplish both, they just need to kill Gaddafi, and therefore, the civilians are safe. Yay!
Question 2:
Like I said earlier, the argument is over Obama’s lack of sense in not informing Congress about the deployment of troops to Libya within the extended time frame. The debate arises with the War Powers Act. I found this article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43474045/ns/politics-white_house
It discusses whether or not drone strikes count as hostilities. “In this case, administration officials say, the Office of Legal Counsel concluded that sustained U.S. support for the NATO campaign against Libya, as well as some of its elements — including U.S. drone strikes — amounted to ‘hostilities’ as defined by the Vietnam-era War Powers Act.”
In a video on this page, Senator Dick Durbin talks about how “hostilities, even by remote control, are still hostilities.” That being said, Congress should have had to authorize the troops that President Obama sent out without their consensus. Obama’s justification of the US not being involved in sustained fighting, not having “active” exchanges of fire, and not having ground troops, just doesn’t work. Obama and his administration should have spoken with NATO about their plans for their peacekeeping mission, and then, before acting upon anything, consulted Congress.
Question 1:
While I understand that saving civilians is of course always important, I do not truly see why the US is getting involved in this conflict. I understand that we must support NATO as they have supported us in the past but Libya is costing us and with our economy not at its best we cannot afford to be involved in something so costly. My personal opinion is that we should not get involved in Libya any further and if possible, withdraw our support.
We are not the nation we once were. It is an unavoidable truth. Our economy is weak and the trillions of dollars that we are in debt does not help this. Libya is another drain on our resources. Before we help others we must look at ourselves and fix our own problems. If we try to expend even more of our resources, both natural and human, the results are likely to be disastrous for our country. With our military forces spread so thin around the world and our dependence on other nations for fuel and other such items, we'll be vulnerable to the influence of foreign, perhaps even belligerent, nations. We'd be easily toppled.
NATO, if they truly wish, can find a way without the US to intervene in Libya. As for our country, I believe that we should remain out of the situation unless provoked somehow.
Question 2:
For this War Powers Act controversy, there are as of yet if I'm not mistaken not any ground troops deployed in Libya. It is also not considered a war, merely a mission to protect civilians. As I understand it, the act provides that the president must inform Congress and it must authorize the commitment of armed military forces within 60 or 90 days. Are our planes that bomb Libya not armed and are they not part of our military forces?
I do not like the fact that the president is sliding his way out of our country's constitutional processes. I do not trust him for the fact that his actions now are expanding presidential powers and infringing on the rights given to Congress by the Constitution. Our system is supposed to be balanced and it seems that Obama and his administration is trying to corrupt that. I believe that he should be held to the restrictions mandated by the War Powers Act and that Congress and the people should first approve any actions or stances taken in Libya.
RE Cassie:
You brought up a good point about the neccessity to focus on what we need to do in Libya from this point, and not on how we got there in the first place. I, myself, am a big "we are we are" person.
The question that does remain is what we will do from here. Like I said before, I'm all for sending aid, even military, on the condition that we first as a nation get our priorities straight as far as our goal in the situation is concerned. We also must remember that too much aid might give way to nation building, which would only increase foreign resentment. Where do we draw the line? And for fun-sies, when the conflict is said and done, how do we deal with the President? Do we pressure Congress to impeach, or are there other forms of action?
Just a thought...
First Question: The issue with the crisis in Libya is that Americans are not sure what the goal of this mission is. If we simply wish to keep peace, I suggest we let NATO do their job and support them as much as possible and also allow humanitarian organizations to work there with our support. We can not be the police force of the world. If we wish to help take down Qaddafi and empower the rebels, we should attack him and remove him from power using our military. Since we are already involved, pulling out is not an option since we are still seen as a military power in this world.
Second Question: The debate is over whether the President has the ability to deploy troops in peace-keeping missions and war without the approval of Congress. I believe this debate is due to the unclear communication about the reason we are in Libya. Like I said in my first answer, are we there only to keep peace or are we there to take out Qaddafi? I believe that once this question is answered clearly, the debate will stop because the mission will be well enough defined to fall into the guidelines set up by our laws.
#1 The United States has an expected responsibility as a stable, developed country to help handle the crisis in Libya, because we are a recognized global power, with precedence in getting involved in struggling developing nations. As Laura said, there would be an outcry if the US declined to become involved, and there is political conflict over the current support of the rebels; but there is little the US could do that there would not be criticism, because those opposed, as the Libyan gov’t is, argue the “oppressive, criminal West” has no right to decide to oust Qaddafi’s regime, or in the less biased countries, feel that the US, and NATO, are overstepping the boundaries of the initial goal of protecting civilians from the government’s military response to the rebel forces. Those in Congress are opposed because of the cost and that the White House has not consulted Congress for approval, and also the calculated risk if their involvement fails or leads to further criticism of the US’s choices to take part in the upheaval.
I agree with John, that Gaddafi is a threat, and a large attack on his compound without restrictions, beyond reasonable ones for civilian safety, should be executed; there should also be, as Laura proposed, aid through humanitarian organizations, and offer asylum, to reduce impact on the civilian population. NATO should continue its involvement, although as to what should become of NATO after the conflict, I have no opinion.
#2 The debate over Congress being needed to authorize troop deployment is based on the President’s authorization of troop deployment for an extended time, and if he has that authority without Congress’ consent or participation. The White House holds the opinion that it was not an act of war, and is part of a peace effort, and so does not need the approval of Congress. In the Issue Brief for Congress, of “War Resolution: Presidential Compliance” ((http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/19134.pdf)) it brings up the point that “If the President has not complied fully, the issue becomes what action Congress should take to bring about compliance or to influence U.S. policy”; so the question is what Congress can and/or should do about this alleged overreaching of the White House’s authority, while the White House claims that the situation in Libya falls short of “full-blown hostilities”. The Issue Brief also states that “every President has taken the position that it is an unconstitutional infringement by the Congress on the President’s authority as Commander-in-Chief. The courts have not directly addressed this question” - so there is not a legal precedence to fully settle this debate. However, the brief also states that “Section 7 of the U.N. Participation Act authorizes the detail of up to 1,000 personnel to serve in any noncombatant capacity for certain U.N. peaceful settlement activities. The United States has provided personnel to several U.N. peacekeeping missions, such as observers to the U.N. Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine. In these instances, controversy over the need for congressional authorization has not occurred because the action appeared to fall within the authorization in Section 7 of the Participation Act. Controversy has arisen when forces have been deployed in larger numbers or as possible combatants.” So there is the possibility that the President’s actions so far have not gone completely against the War Powers Act’s authority, as the U.N.’s involvement uses Resolution 1973, passed by the United Nations Security Council which authorizes "all necessary measures", short of bringing in an occupying force, to protect Libyan citizens from the Gaddafi regime. ((http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12799937))
Whatever America does with Libya, it needs to make decisive action and stick with it. If the government wants to support the rebellion, then it needs to go all out, deposing Qaddafi quickly, similar to how America dealt with the Persian Gulf War. If not, then the government needs to pull out completely. Most of the options in between, with the US giving only partial support for the war, will only lead to a prolonged conflict which will cost many lives and dollars. Personally, I would prefer that the US stay out of it. The country is not doing well, especially economically. The country should focus on helping itself, instead of worrying about a civil war thousands of miles away. That is not to say that the US should not be involved with NATO, though. NATO would be severely handicapped without the US, as it would be without one of the world's biggest powers. The US just can't always be the major force in every NATO action.
For Question 2, the debate boils down to a fight for power between the President and Congress. The War Powers Act was originally passed to limit the President's power in wars, thereby giving more power to Congress, as it would be able to kill any military action taken by the President. Now, as they are arguing the details of the act, they are in effect fighting for power. The White House wants to have a very relaxed interpretation of the Act, as it makes the argument that because there is limited involvement right now, this situation does not fall under the Act's jurisdiction. On the other hand, Republicans and others in Congress believe that because there is any involvement the situation applies to the Act. If the White House wins this debate, then more power will be given to the President, while Congress would likewise gain power if it won.
Quite the tricky situation, isn't it? What can we do to support all ends of the conflict whilst still coming out ahead? I think its already been established that no one particular answer is the right one, and likewise each and every solution will not be popular for some groups, but in the end, the United States has to stand its ground somewhere.
In regards to the first question, I think its best to lay out the groundwork before formulating an opinion. The entire situation is a civil war. I don't care how the political correct news pundits define it. This conflict is no different than the American Civil War, Russian Civil War, Finnish Civil War, or any other civil war for that matter. Nothing can dispute this. One faction is vying for control of the country over another one. NATO has involved itself, as have the US and Arab League. The entire conflagration is just one event in a wide chain of Pro-Democracy rallies prompted by the Tunisia Wikileak about a year or so ago.
NATO has fought Gaddafi's army to a standstill, but refuses to take the air war any farther. Neither the Rebel nor Loyalist side can gain ground over the other, and NATO is content on leaving most of the heavy-lifting to the untrained, mal-equiped militia soldiers. What support is offered by the Europeans comes in the form of obselete Cold War technology kept buried beneath layers of dust somewhere underneath a museum.
The United States has more or less kept to themselves in regards to the war. Yes, we did conduct prelimiary air strikes, but as far as we're concerned now, our carrier task force in the Mediterranean is nothing but a floating acknowledgement to our influence in the region. We "support" the NATO effort, but do nothing but rubberneck the actual fighting.
As far as the world is concerned, the United States is still the pinnacle of military prowess as it was at the height of the Cold War. Taking a simple look through the newspaper can confirm that this once true statement is no longer the case. Need I say budget cuts and forced base closings? Davis-Montham AFB ring any bells?In a similar manner, NATO was regarded as the Europeans' collective military front to bash whatever the world can throw at them. And like the US, it has since fallen into virtual disrepair. Internal turmoil and bickering between nations also has a tendency to bog down even the most rudimentary of processes in red tape.
The thing with Libya is the fact that more initiative is required to make it work. Simply sitting on our hands will not fix the problem, nor will patting NATO on the back for doing a pathetic job. If the US doesn't, NATO needs to step up.
There are two options on the table.
The preferable: Smash Gaddafi and show to the Muslim World that the United States and NATO is no longer the "Great Satan." This will involve direct combat and a greater deal of involvement from all warring parties. In the end, should things run smoothly, the "Western Allies" can expect considerable compensation for their actions when it comes to their influence in the region. A little pain now would be well-worth the payout down the road.
The Other Option:
Simply let the two factions duke it out with as much or as little NATO support as they can get. In the end, we'll either see Gaddafi steamroll the rebels, or a split Libya barring a shocking resemblance to the Koreas or the Vietnamese DMZ in the 1960's. Either way, it means disaster for Pro-Democratic forces in the region, and will likely spell an end for all other rallies of such a kind in the Middle East for a considerable time. A Totalitarian West Libya and a fledgling Democratic East Libya would last about as long as the Conch Republic.
What do I think? I think the US should get off their hands and get involved. The public may not like it, but that is always the case when it comes down to warfare. At least this time though, unlike Iraq, we have a legitmate reason for being involved. That much at least should serve as an effective rally post for public support. Regardless of this though, we NEED to get a piece of the action. There is too much at stake here not to have a hand in it. By doing nothing, the United States basically says to the world that democracy doesn't matter, and the US doesn't care. It also further undermines our supposed place as the forefront nation of the world.
NATO should continue doing what they do best; flinging sand like toddlers at a playground. Their original intent has long since come of age, and most of the original scripture defining the compact is obselete. They have the European Union. Why not just fold NATO into a joint military branch of the EU? Last time I checked, mergers normally make things better... not to mention in NATO's case much quicker as well. As far as Libya goes, NATO can continue doing the absolute minimum it is known for while the rebels on the ground suffer through. Bigwigs talk about war, bombs and soldiers win them.
Will any of this happen? No, not in the slightest. Bureaucrats will continue to run their mouths while good men die on the frontlines. The situation is going to rapidly devolve into a Vietnam-esque situation, so long as NATO continues to do the absolute minimum required to pass as "helping." They can't back out, and they won't because of the political ramifications of doing so. In the end, Libya will be split in two. Gaddafi at one end, who knows who at the other. As soon as NATO rolls out, we have a repeat of the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Gaddafi's tanks will be in Benghazi within weeks. Game Over.
And what does the US or NATO get out of this? Yet another slap in the face, increased resentment in the Middle East, and maybe... just maybe... another tarnished reminder of our continual fall from grace on the world stage.
As for Question 2 and the War Powers Act. Reading over some of the opinions on here, I must express my commendation for Bill's approach towards the issue. I'm gonna say it straight. American action in Libya IS illegal. Should Congress vote to involve us in the conflcit however, then it would be perfectly legitimate. President Obama had no reason to involve us by himself, and was in direct violation of the law in doing so without first consulting Congress.
Like always, it was the UN who forced us into the war, and like always it was the UN that undermined our own laws and customs for the "betterment of the world." Ultimately, the choice to deploy American troops is up to the US Congress, and not the General Assembly or Security Council.
NATO's mission was to protect civilians, and the No-Fly Zone was designed to limit the chance of Gaddafi's air force causing civilian casualties. We all known how insane dictators can be when it comes to a dissident population. The focus was on civilians and not on combat. No hostilities against the US were present. Gaddafi has not threatened the US, nor has his staff. Logically then, the Executive Office has no legal justification to deploy forces as they did.
Stamp it illegal.
Mollie K
Ever since the beginning the U.S. has been looked up to for guidance and help. Even during our economic struggle right now, we are stilled considered one of the top nations in the world. For that reason alone I believe that we have to keep our "image" and help Libya keep peace.
The U.S. and NATO should help Libya with peace terms, but anything further than that is not necessary. We are not in an economic state to help Libya and we need to keep money on the home front. We cannot keep spending money on a country when we have no real mission set in stone. Yes, Gaddafi needs to be taken out in my opinion, but not without a plan first. I believe we should just hunt for Gaddafi and get rid of him, and then let NATO handle the rest.
However with NATO killling and wounding innocent civilians that is not going to be possible. NATO needs to eventually be taken away and no longer be involved in world affairs. They provide aid, but very little for that matter. It is important that NATO sees this matter to the end, but not become involved again.
#2 This debate is all about the power each branch has and desires to have. The President had no authority in deploying troops to Libya simply for the matter that there was no threat to the U.S. There was no declaration of war,or a national emergency from an attack of any sort. The President deploying troops is illegal, and is not justifiable in any manner. He over stepped the boundary lines, and the Congress should had voted on the issue. He had no right to take this matter into his hands alone.
Ryne, you can delete the double post, just go to the bottom of your post. There's a trash can, click it.
First of all I want to let everyone know I'm using my iPod for this posting so if I get any facts wrong it's because I can't leave the posting page after typing has started (copy/paste only works for so many characters.)
On regards to question one, if the United States sends resources of any kind to Libya, it should be very limited aid and as Bill stated earlier, once the problem is resolved, we no longer need to stay on their turf. We wouldn't want to overstay our 'visit' to Libya like we have in the Middle East..
I understand the government has spent around $715 million in the first 2 months of 'operations' and will soar to 1.1 billion dollar mark by September. I don't know about you guys but I'm pretty sure we can find better use of that money, say helping our own economy? The last thing the US needs is another foreign affair to deal with. Wars aren't necessarily cheap as we all know. We cannot spend this much money on foreign countries where our own economy is struggling to get back up from the crash we had a couple years ago.
As far as NATO is concerned, Libya should be its last showing in wordly affairs and then needs to be dissolved. The US should help NATO with their operations and other humanitarian aid and then, as said before, get out of Libya. Although it is true the United States has been seen as one of the most powerful military force in the world, we need to swallow our pride of 'never backing out from a fight' and realize when our time has come to cease military operations. It is reasonable to say this will not happen as we are still in the Middle East after we have fulfilled our goals in that category.
For question two, I agree with Maddie when she says sending troops to Libya is not the answer. If Obama wants to send in troops to provide aid to Libya then he definitely needs justification, as Laura stated in her post.
Again I'm going from memory, but I believe one of the articles provided stated that Obama was pushing the Vietnam era WPA timeframe limit for the 60-90 day operations limit without officially having the approval from congress. However, the timeframe has been passed and therefore the approval for the deployment of troops is necessary
Question 1: Libya is going through a time of change. For forty years Libya has suffered with a dictator, Col. Qaddafi, now the citizens of Libya are tired of him and want a new leader. Of course whenever there is a want for change there is always the opposing side; Qaddafi’s forces verses the rebelling citizens. As this Civil War unfolds it causes international attention and debates over what should be done with Libya.
In order to help Libya, some foreign aid is necessary but it should not take over the war. This war is a fight within the one nation and the majority of the fighting and support should come from that one nation. I think other countries should help the Libyan soldiers out with the necessary accommodations such as food, water, war supplies, training, money and clothing but they should not be sending in large amounts of troops to help fight another country’s war. Although all countries should watch each other’s backs and give help when it is needed, it should not become another country’s main battle.
The United States should take notice of the foreign issues and give some help to Libya. The US should continue to support the rebel side because Qaddafi was a cruel leader and harmed his people. To show support, the US should give aid such as training, money and war supplies to the rebel group. By giving them these tools, the rebel army will be able to fight their own war and take control of their country.
Even though the United States are involved with the Libyan Civil War, they only have small role in this situation. This is because they have not deployed ground troops nor interacted with the opposing force for a consistent time period. Since the United States are only marginally involved with the war, I don’t think they have a strong input on the actions of the war. I think the US wanted to get involved in a small way for domestic motives, such as becoming an ally with, hopefully, new leaders so that in the future they have a strong relationship.
With foreign war, especially since this war is over a political issue, NATO automatically becomes involved. NATO gives aid to its allies by protecting “the freedom and security [of them] through political or military means” (4). In this situation NATO claims that they are only aiding as a peace- keeping mission, but their actions speak other ways. I think NATO should be involved with this war and give the Libyan rebels support by sending in troops and needed supplies. NATO should not claim to be in the war as only a peace- keeper, because in times of war there is no peace. Therefore they should remove the label and just give as much help as they can.
Question 2:The current debate in congress is over whether or not there needs to be an authorization in troop deployment. Even though there are no ground troops the congress is still debating about authorization. I think that this debate is occurring because Congress feels that anytime there is US involvement in a war zone, it needs to be authorized. Unlike many wars, drones are being used in Libya, therefore limiting the need for troop deployment. Even though the President has not deployed troops the US enacted in the war, therefore congress feels it needs to be authorized within the 60-90 day range from the War Powers Act.
Along with the congressional debate there is also dispute on the relationships between the White House, NATO and Congress on taking action in Libya. I agree with Senator Graham that NATO and the White House should have a stronger relationship with Libya rather than Congress. Congress is holding the White House back from making decisions that are necessary for the gaining success in Libya. Since Congress is in disagreement with the President’s judgment it is only causing time to be wasted away and less action to be taken. In times of war, there are periods where allowing the President to take action without Congress is the best. Since NATO is an international organization, they need to increase their relationship and have a majority of the decision making process. In order to keep NATO around they need to become stronger and show their support for Libyan Rebels. By increasing the relationship between the White House and NATO on the Libya Civil War issue they will help the rebels become victor of the war.
Sources for question 1&2
1.http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/world/africa/20powers.html?_r=1&ref=libya
2.http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/world/africa/19libya.html?ref=libya
3http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=libya&st=cse
4.http://articles.cnn.com/2006-11-28/world/nato.sidebar_1_nato-allies-north-atlantic-treaty-military-headquarters?_s=PM:WORLD
5.http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/politics/16powers.html?ref=africa
6.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/vp/43455267#43455267
7.http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/06/19/libya-says-nato-airstrike-hits-residential-area/
question #1
Like many who have posted so far there really isnt a correct way to the Lybia problem. there will always be two sides to the conflict. the thing i do say is that once we are commited we must finish with what we started. i understand that the War powers act is there to help contain the power that is given to the president as well as help protect this country. At the same time if we back out after 90 days, what does that say about the U.S.? I think that the route the U.S. has tooken becoming a supporting role to NATO is a fair way to stop a full engagment that the War power act is trying to prevent while allowing us to show that we wont back down.
Question #2
The heat coming from the deployment of troops and how congress did not autherized the deployment of troops is something to look out for. The UN as well as the Arab league had given NATO a mandate saying to protect civilians not the downfall of a tyrant leader. In this aspect i understand where deployment of troops is going a little far. Yet, to protect the civilians who suffer from Quadafi rule they must seperate him from ruling. We all know he doesnt want to do that he has a sweet gig stealing money from the counrty. So in overall the deployment of troops without concent is of course illega. Again i believe that the supporting role the U.S. has taken is the good choose and that congress should autherize deployment, but at a smaller scale.
First: America is the world’s poster child for freedom so we are obligated to be involved in the civil war taking place in Libya despite being involved elsewhere. Now being involved does not mean taking over the war or even engaging in hostilities, being involved should be simply providing supplies and medical aid to the rebels as well as potential offering refugees safe passage to other countries. I get that Ghadaffi is not really a nice guy and hasn’t made living in Libya pleasant, and that he has a say in the oil situation, but we still should not be actively engaging in Libya it should be more of a passive thing. NATO as an international organization has the ability to support Libyan rebels and help contain the fighting to hopefully reduce the risk on civilian areas. This is not America’s war and it is not NATO’s war it is Libya’s war. The Libyans have to solve their own problems because only by fixing them by themselves can they truly become a new nation. Otherwise people will always believe other foreign powers lurk in the new government and it will be torn to pieces. This is a peace keeping mission so its goal should be to have this civil war end as quickly as possible so peace can be restored and so negotiations over new governing can begin.
Second: The debate is between the Congress and the President over who gets to call the shots when it comes to deploying troops. I see both sides. The President sent over drones not real people so it really doesn’t fall under the deploying troop’s category. If you actually are considering sending in troop’s that is basically putting your country in the war and that is unwise since we are already involved in one. Now congress is throwing a fit because the President didn’t ask to send in the drones that do engage in fighting over in Libya and so they should be considered along the lines of deploying a force into Libya which would mean the President needed Congress’s say in the matter. The real problem is letting it slide and allowing a precedent to be created allowing the President to send over robots and bypass the whole time limit. Now it’s important to be able to act quickly in a war and giving the President power to act in times of need is important. However it just wasn’t really that time and Congress should have been approached in regard s to another foreign affair being added to the payroll.
(Re: Kevin)
The observation that the United States cannot commit and then pull out is very helpful; in the past few days we have seen the results of a failed troop commitment. We went into Afghanistan, guns blazing, ready to institute stability and democracy and now are beginning to extract our troops leaving the area barely more stable than before, still potentially harboring those we went in to eradicate, and returning home to a public whose opinion of the conflict is that it was a giant waste of our time and resources, whether or not it was necessary. American public opinion is a significant if not the greatest force in our Republic. Public opinion is fickle and the world is increasingly focused on immediate gratification - if the States were to commit troops then admit failure a short time later, realizing we had bitten off a few more countries than we could democratize, public opinion would plummet and the political situation at home would become more unstable. In our increasingly partisan and media oriented political climate, is it wise to knowingly create the potential for such demoralization, considering the already declining patriotism and faith of the American people? I think not. We are too insecure as a country already. We are still defining ourselves in a new age and as a dynamic and changing country in the world's view. We cannot risk the political implications of such a potentially stalemated conflict at home. The situation is too ripe for the rise of a demagogue should Americans loose any more faith in their government.
RE: Cooper
I completely agree with what you said about sticking with one decision and doing it as quickly as possible. We are already spending tons of money in Afghanistan and our economy can't afford to get into another war where we are losing so much money that should be kept in our own country. We need to worry about what is going on here. If we need to stay in Libya long than we need to stay out of it. If it is going to be a quick mission than go ahead, but keep it on as low of a budget as possible. I dont think that we have can afford to be fighting and paying for another war.
Question 1:
Like Bill said, there is no "correct" way to handle the situation or any issue in politics. Different ways will have different results. We must consider before me make the choice. In my opinion,at first, i think that we must understand the whole situation. We should consider our interests and adjust our strategies. Maybe, we shouldn't even get involved into this. NATO should continue their involvement with Libya. Perhaps, NATO as an organization can help them. Also, we can think of attacking Qaddafi since it seems like the problem is from Qaddafi.
Question 2:
Because this is a NATO peace-keeping mission and not a war,the current debate is whether or not the United States should continue to be involved without the approval from the Congress. Their consideration is that since this isn't something that affect the United States that much, there is no need to get approval from the Congress. Personally, i believe that us, the United States should get approval from the Congress no matter what. Because any choices we made might affect other countries or citizens.Therefore, We should consider and vote before we make any choices.
(Re: Bill)
You also bring up a good point that has been slightly overlooked: how do we deal with the President? This is a tricky situation, considering the defense that has been proffered, which denies that the actions taken fall under the hostilities treated in the statute - perhaps the best way to determine action is first to determine whether the defense is valid. The institution to best determine this would be the Supreme Court would it not?
Kathy Nguyen
Question 1: Honestly, the decision is Libya is quite oblivious for some people while it takes time and precision for this situation for others. Many of the debates agree that the troops should be leaving Libya while others debate that Khaddafy could be the one who could take down NATO, resulting in “doom” for America. If NATO had fallen then think about the prices in oil that Khaddafy would do if he had taken over Egypt. It’s true that the president isn’t taking precaution nor any actions for this, except for joining up with the UN and NATO to prevent Khaddafy from killing innocent lives. To prevent Khaddafy killing innocent lives, there should be no ground troop and have little duration conflict with Khaddafy. “We are killing with drones what we would otherwise be killing with fighter planes.” said Sen. Durbin, this means we are still engaged in hostilities. I agree with Durbin that we should cut off the troops. Whatever NATO has done for the overtime has not worked. These fighter drones as well has not really contributed and ended the war quickly. More likely it has created more struggles between NATO and securing national safety. I think that we should stop the aerial attacks, our goal is to stop Khaddafy and bombing is not an option. Economically wise, we are not “fit” for this battle either. It was a good thing, I think, that America took off air power off the table. Even though it supposedly weakened NATO, it took off a huge load off the prices off home if we think about it. I also agree with Durbin in the clip, we should take precision and well-good timing to end this war little by little. America urges for peace missions, but are these missions succeeding? Over time, we should be removing our troops from Libya and leaving supplies for the troops. Although it feels like it's the Vietnam war all over again, but it's a different scenario. Libya itself can fend off Khaddafy.
Question 2: The debate between Congress deciding between whether or not it is necessary to have authority troop development. It’s quite difficult to decide on that think about what might happen if America did leave Libya on their own. Would Khaddafy take over and control over the oil prices and cause more chaos? Or could the rebels within Libya take over now that “Khaddafy is on one leg”? But let’s say if Congress decided to let in their aerial bombardment and troops with NATO, would that get us anywhere? In the article, innocent lives were killed when on plane went astray. I believe that debate should lean towards Congress not deploying troops to Libya. I agree with Maddie’s statement, no soldier should to go war and be forced to fight. I also agree with the senators that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional.
It took me this long to realize my last name doesn't come up when I post.
Ryan Batchelder
Question 1: I've read through some of the other opinions on this and I agree that the US's involvement through support organizations (in this situation: NATO) should continue so long as the organization's mission is for the support of peace. Cassie mentioned a very good point, that NATO went into Libya to protect civilians and haven't done a great job at that. Personally, I feel that giving support to NATO for the protection of civilians is more important than killing Qaddafi, and I would hope that prioritizing the protection of innocent lives is something a majority could agree on. And with this, I believe that the role of the US is simply aid to NATO until Congress approves of troop movements or any other form of hostilities. I know that it's mentioned in both the video and NYT article that while we don't have troops on the ground, the topic of using unmanned drones in relation to the President's warmaking power is debated. Just because a man was killed by someone 100 feet in front of him, or 1,000 miles away, is he any less dead?
Question 2: Part of the answer to this question is covered in my statements above about unmanned drones. Congress shouldn't have to approve troop movements for a NATO peacekeeping mission, but President Obama seems to be taking actions into his own hands, which is where the issue lies. While Congress does not need to approve troop movements to help NATO, Obama needs to stop moving "troops" into Libya if his true intentions are supporting NATO.
Re: Ryan
So are you saying unmanned drones count as troops, ground or otherwise? If Obama is using drones instead of actual men, wouldn't they count more as aid through giving weapons vs troop support? Weaponry being used and/or destroyed is not the same as actual men being used, regardless of who is controlling them from a safe zone.
RE: Bill
I agree with you that we need to decide why we are in Libya and then accomplish our goal as fast as possible. I just wonder why no goal has been made clear to the American public. Is it because the government itself doesn't have a goal or because of the many hidden agendas?
RE: Cooper
I agree that the US does not belong in this conflict, but since we are already involved, do we have another choice than to stay? If the US does leave before peace is reached, the situation will reflect badly on the US as a failure.
Re: Niki/Ryan
if these drones are being used as weapons or other operations outside of humanitarian aid be acts of war anyways, so shouldn't there need to be an approval regardless of sending troops vs drones if they're both used for war?
1:
The United States needs to be involved in the peace keeping mission in Libya. It is important to remember that the entire operation is being run by NATO which involves other countries, so it is not as if we are the only ones putting our fingers in the pie. It would be counter productive as well as embarrassing to pull out of Libya before a resolution even begins to be reached. NATO has handled other situations to ineptly to have a complete failure on there hands. Libya needs to be brought to a solid solution and position of stability so NATO can have a success on their hands and then cease to be involved in foreign affairs. This way it does not go out looking like a complete failure, but at the same time it is recognized as not being properly structured or funded to be involved in world issue any longer.
Qaddafi is another hugely important factor in the situation with Libya. He poses a threat to our country and the rest of the world. If left unchecked it is hard to say what he could evolve into. He has already called for a jihad of sorts against the Western world and who can say, he could be our next Bin Laden (and honestly who wants to go through THAT again?). The last thing we need is more hysteria over terrorism and more hatred of Muslims because of a couple of bad people who give it a bad reputation. Quite simply, the United States needs to put a stop to his power and possibly just him altogether (it's a bit bold, but yes maybe we should kill him). This country has always promised to help other countries to freedom so we can't back out now when there are people who need our help.
*(also it costs a whole lot of money for me to put gas in my car and Qaddafi wants to make the price go up even more so yes it would be nice if he could just be gone)
2:
Congress believes that the president needs to have it's approval before getting further involved in Libya. The War Powers act says that 60 to 90 days after the President deploys troops he must inform Congress and they must approve the action or the troops have to be pulled out. The White House does not want to end its' involvement in Libya so they are attempting to avoid this by saying that it is not war so the law does not apply. They believe that since there are no ground troops involved and since they are not involved in what they believe to be hostilities, we aren't at war persay. However, since we are using drones and off-shore missiles and other things of this nature, Congress does not want to set a precedent in which the President has the power to use such things against other countries without consulting anybody because that would be too much power for one man. I am inclined to side with Congress, but I do not wish for them to pull troops out of Libya. It really is a problem that needs to be taken care of sooner rather than later, and while the President does not have the power to do as much as he already has, he still has done what should have been done only minus Congressional approval.
Question 1: I agree with Ryan, in saying that our involvement in Lybia should be to support NATO and to keep peace as the rebels overthrow Gaddafi. I also think that the US and NATO should stay in Lybia until Gaddafi is out of office, dead or alive. We should provide civilian/rebel aid as well, such as food, medicinal supplies, and weapons. While the US is clearly not in an economic state to send massive ammounts of support, there is a chance that once Gaddafi is overthrown, the new government will be more stable and reliable enough, that we may be able to benefit economically from the country's possible success. Maybe it's just wishful thinking from me.
Question 2: So long as all the support sent over to Lybia are really to support NATO, then I don't see too big of a problem with Obama's decision. Should sending in ground troops be suggested, then I would like to see a lot more congressional approval.
Re: kmow32
If the drones are used as air support for the humanitarian efforts of protecting civilians, with either reactionary or offensive attacks, then it would fall under the umbrella of NATO and the UN's initiative of peacekeeping and addressing threats against civilians. Also, the US has not declared war, and several press statements (slanted whichever way you want) say it is not "full-blown hostilities", or is already extended beyond initial predictions - so technically its not war, at least for US involvement. Being such a gray area, and the issue which I mentioned in my #2 post, military aid for a UN resolution does not need to be approved by Congress, because the UN supercedes Congress on foreign issues, to some extent, within limited funding and troops. But as to whether the White House technically should seek Congress approval- that's why it's a controversy: it's a legal gray area, with resolution clauses just unspecific enough in definition to have some wiggle room; so political factions are splitting hairs over the wording/choices of the White House.
RE Janeen:
NATO is simply an alliance of nations. With that said, each individual country in it participates in its own way. Thus, it is up to the individual country to determine what their participation will be. With that said, sending military (even drones/missiles) requires Congress apporval or a declaration of war before the president can send anything into anywhere under the War Powers Act. Basically, the military action taken (even in support of NATO) is illegal. A wolf in sheep skin is still a wolf. Illegal acts under the guise of mandates are still illegal. That's what has to be considered at all times.
In a war-weary nation, the imposition of American might in a country other than our own to any extent can only lead to more chaos. However, we are where we are, so I suggest we make the best of it. Determine a goal, then act on it.
RE Taylor:
To answer your question, I believe both. The government shoots from the hip on many matters. Thus, it's hard to pinpoint a particular goal. Not to mention, the government argues on goals, so good luck trying to get a straight answer from them. Also, I'd be willing to bet that the USA is hoping for oil in the aftermath of Gadaffi (hopefully) falling from power, so I think the government is being tight-lipped to prevent the public from getting angry at what the "real goal" would be.
Just thinking...
RE: Bill
I completely agree with you. After watching the news channel with my grandfather this morning, I remembered how big an influence the media has on this matter. The government has not presented a clear goal, but if they do, there's no guarantee that the media will present new information truthfully. After what the media has done to tear down the government in the past, maybe the government doesn't want to present a goal because they are tired of being scrutinized by the media.
RE: Janeen
In response to your opinion about overthrowing the dictator Gaddafi, I point out that we overthrew another tyrant in Iraq. I believe it would be all too similar to what happened there. We invested our time and resources there, we took out Hussein but we did not achieve any kind of stability. If we did this same thing to Libya it is not at all certain that we would be able to stabilize their country. In fact, it may again just worsen their situation and all we would achieve is more resentment from these nations.
RE: Janeen
You said that we should support the rebels with supplies so that they can overthrow Qaddafi. If our main goal is to take out Qaddafi, why don't we just do it ourselves?
RE: Taylor
It doesn't matter whether the government is tired of being scrutinized or not. If they have a clear goal for involvement in Libya then they must present it to us, the people. It's our right to know what our funds are going towards and why. The government should be used to by now the criticism of the media. And honestly it should not be all that important to them. There are ways to give the people unbiased information. We deserve to clearly understand what we are striving towards in Libya and decide the best manner to get it or whether or not this goal is truly in the best interest of the people of the united states. That should be the foremost priority of our government; to provide the people with information and act in their best interest.
re: Janeen
So you don't think spending millions of dollars to send troops and supplies to Libya should be a congressional decision? I'm sorry but with our economy already is termoil I think that kind of spending should be voted on.
Re:Lauryn
I agree with your opinion that they shouldn't pull the troops out of Libya just yet. Also the President did jump the gun and overstep the Congress's authority, but I don't necessarily agree that if there was a vote that it would of passed through Congress. A lot of people are on edge about this topic, and it is quite possible that troops would never of even went over in the first place, had this went to a vote.
Re: All
Sorry, there were too many responses to my post to respond individually, but I will try to address you all. NATO went to the UN to request action in Lybia, when this action was granted, us, being part of NATO were obliged to join. Debate over whether NATO overrides the war powers act is clearly there, but the US would have been there anyways with or without congressional approval. Also, if the US never existed, Spain and France would still be doing the same exact thing. But since we are here and a part of NATO, don't you think that if we were to sit this one.out, other countries would thinkk of us as an unreliable ally? Saying that we cannot afford to become involved is certainly an interesting concept. Clearly, we are in serious economic trouble, but like I said, if we had sat this one out, we'd be seen as less than we really are.
This situation is completely different from Iraq, we are not going after weapons that we don't really know exist, and we have full NATO support. Just because we are in the process of eliminating a ruthless dictator, doesn't mean that the war in Iraq can compare to the police action in Lybia.
To me, protecting the Lybian people and removing Gaddafi have become the same thing. To protect the civilians, NATO (which includes the US) and the rebels must work together to remove Gaddafi and keep him from attacking anyone.
-Janeen Lantry ( This was written on a nook color, so if spelling and grammar are incorrect, I appologize.)
RE: Taylor
I agree that outside nations would see the US pulling out of Libya as a failure, which will probably stop the government from doing it. If that's the case, then I'd prefer the US just go all out and fully use its military. I Still think that the US should withdraw, though.
RE Janeen:
NATO backed the start of the Iraq war and were participating in it as of 2004, when the UN passed a mandate for NATO to act in a "security" mission. Mind, NATO as a single entity did not send support, but rather the individual countries did to various degrees. It was considered police action then, too. In all respects, our action in Libya is very similar to the Iraq war, minus the ground troops.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_51978.htm
NATO never requested anything; they did not go to the UN for permission to act and they certainly did not initiate a request to act for the UN in upholding the no-fly-zone. The Security Council requested that NATO step in and uphold the UN mandate, not the other way around. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm
With that cleared up, let me reiterate that NATO is an alliance. Each country involved in that alliance is responsible for its own actions. Therefore, no NATO protocol (which more or less remains a suggestion) overrides any country's Constitution. The UN, yes, but not NATO. We may have gotten involved either way, but Congressional approval would have been needed. The actions, when considering the US Constitution, are illegal.
(in best Forrest Gump voice) And that's what I gotta say about that.
RE: Bill
Well if the UN Security Council asked for NATO nations to uphold their resolution, then the INDIVIDUAL COUNTRIES, such as the US, WHO IS ALSO PART OF THE UN Security Council, part of NATO or otherwise, who respond to the UN resolution, would be working or policing or whatever you want to call it, under the UN mandate, therefore, having the UN override of congressional approval. The US, in the Security Council that approved the UN resolution said "(United States spokesperson)today, the Council had responded to the Libyan peoples’ cry for help. The Council’s purpose was clear: to protect Libyan civilians. The Council had adopted an earlier resolution that had sent a strong message, but Colonel Qadhafi and those that still stood by him had continued to grossly and systematically violate the most fundamental rights of the Libyan people. The Arab League had subsequently called on the Council to take more stringent measures, and the current resolution was an answer to that call, as well as a strong response to the situation in the ground.
She said the Security Council had authorized the use of force, including enforcement of a no-fly zone, to protect civilians and civilian areas targeted by Colonel Qadhafi, his allied forces and mercenaries. The text also tightened measures already approved under resolution 1970 (2011). In addition, it established a panel of experts to monitor short- and long-term implementation of the sanctions. She stressed that the future of Libya should be decided by the Libyan people. The United States stood with the people of Libya in their struggle to exercise their fundamental rights."
So military force was permitted in the policing action as part of the UN mandate, and by pledging support, the US had to come through on that promise.
RE: Janeen
Just because a nation is a member of NATO doesn't necessarily mean that it is compelled to have equal participation as the rest of the member nations. In this case, the US is not in a very good position to be involved. Its participation also might be a violation of the Constitution, which NATO can't overrule, as Bill said.
RE: Cooper
See my previous comment. The US may not be in a good position, but having pledged support as part of the UN Security Council, the White House does have claim to the UN mandate override, NATO nation or no. And having pledged support, with the UN authorization of use of force, it would look worse if the US did not show full support, which includes military aid for the use of the policing force. The quote I used is one of Bill's sources, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc
RE: Jenn K
I agree with you when it comes to the point you made about foreign involvement only being limited, however, I do think that a struggling country still needs a large amount of support; whether that be granted by one country, or ten. Also, I think that because of the economy that we’re facing here, sending money probably isn’t the most suitable option that we have. Training through, I hadn’t thought of. Good idea!
RE: Ryan
NATO definitely needs to set its priorities straight because considering that Libya is supposed to be a peacekeeping mission, and their main goal now is to kill Gaddafi, that’s a problem. Oh, and your last comment in response to the first question- genius. No, someone isn’t any less dead because of the distance in which another attacked them from. I know that was a rhetorical question, but still, it was a good point.
For the second question, I actually find your answer interesting. You don’t think that Congress should’ve approved the deployment of troops? Hostilities are still hostilities, even by remote control, like the Senator said. Anyway, I do agree when it comes to Obama taking issues into his own hands, and that being a problem because of his lack of interest in informing his administration as well as Americans in whatever he’s doing.
RE: Bill
I think that what Bill had metioned about question one had made a lot of sense to me. This country if not liked is at least a role model of this world. Through this conflict in Libya the U.S. is yet again throwing its wieght around in policing this world. Yet this country doesnt have a definate goal in mind, do we want Gadafi out of power or to keep the people safe? The U.S. had falled back to a supporting role to save face in this involvement because they have no solid plans. if we want Gadafi out we can finish it in one day, but we choose to keep the civilans safe, within the boundries that we placed.
In Question two i think unlike Bill is that the deployment of troops is not a volation of the War Powers act.The U.S. is undergoing a humantarion mission not a wartime mission, so congress has no authority over what troops are deployed. If by chance this because a decloration of war, or an attack on the U.S. then congress has all the power to deirect and approve the deployment of troops.
Re: Kevin et Laura
You both do bring up a good point. It seems a commo nfacet of modern day military strategy is trying to fight an unconventional war conventionally... whereas deploying a huge standing army in an area that can barely support the people who they're fighting. The modern era has been an era of guerilla warfare and anti-imperialist aggression, and likewise when deploying the 20,000 or so American troops, there's serious economic and political sacrifices involved to do so. As you both have pointed out, the problem is that more often than not, there is not option to retreat or pull out unscathed. Someone will always lose, and more often than not, the side to lose is the one bogged down in the most red-tape. Wars are no longer fought between two armies of equal technology and training, but between standard and shadow armies.
In terms of Libya, my opinion in regards to WHY we won't deploy troops is the fear of a repeat "Iraq Syndrome." Run in with guns-blazing, clean out the enemy in a month, and then when everything seems all wel land good, suddenly get bogged down in a nearly 5-year long insurgency. Even if one of the factions in Libya is allied, there is no telling how quickly they'd be willing to shed that facade should sums of money come their way from a certain regional superpower (Iran and Al Qaeda).
RE N5.Paulat:
Remember, the UN did not request NATO enforcement, they asked. Very different. If I requested or demanded you to do something under international pressure, it would be, more or less, a requirement. However, if I asked, there would be a lot less pressure for action. Also remember the UN mandate is very limited. It does not call for the removal of Gadaffi. The original mandate called for the imposition of a no-fly-zone. I haven't heard of planes flying overhead lately, have you? With that settled, I agree that the UN wanted NATO to then protect civilians. Lately, NATO's gotten just as bad as Gadaffi with all the friendly fire attacks. Also, the US did not have a choice when it came to the Security Council...it is one of the 5 constant members by UN rules....we couldn't get out if we wanted to. Furthermore, it was the UK that "volunteered" us.
With that said, "asking" (according to your terminology) brings a whole new dynamic to the situation. Such action is then optional. Also, like I said in my second post, the UN mandate allowed NATO to create this protection, not help the rebels--nothing more. Therefore, any additional action, logically, would be left to the discretion of the individual countries involved. The USA's actions are then controlled by Congress. Congress did not authorize additional military attacks, so they are illegal. See my second post for more...
I'm not saying being there is wrong on moral/ethical grounds. If I had my choice as President, we'd still be involved in Libya to some degree. However, I would have gone through the legal requirements listed in War Powers Act, along with other Constitutional laws. I'm talking about the legality of Obama's movement of troops in the Libyan conflict.
Ironically, the UN mandate was not mandatory. Thus, the US of its own volition chose to get involved. Thus, the US needs to abide by its own laws in this matter.
RE Highschoolaer:
Any use of troops outside the US for any type of mission needs Congressional approval. See my second post. We stuck a "humanitarian" label on the Iraq war after WMD were not found, and Congress was responsible for approving the ferrying of troops there.
Though, I appreciate your support for question 1. :)
RE:Bill
Request and ask are not very different, and both terms were used by the Security Council. Also being the US, which gets involved in almost everything, anyway, how could we not support Libya. And, the UK may have "volunteered" us, but the US spokesperson didn't say Well, we'll support you, but just through food supplies and whatever. She said "the Security Council had authorized the use of force, including enforcement of a no-fly zone, to protect civilians and civilian areas targeted by Colonel Qadhafi, his allied forces and mercenaries." Use of force INCLUDING a no-fly zone. It didn't say ONLY a no-fly zone.
Part of protecting civilians includes helping the rebels, how could you not? If you are trying to create a perimeter and no-fly zone, how does that not help the rebels, since they don't have to worry about civilians? Plus a policing action can include offensive attacks on groups who have been causing civilian casualties, without being a separate goal. That sort of action is done all the time on the basis of preemptive action. So it can fall under the UN mandate goal, especially since "speaking after the vote, representatives who had supported the text agreed that the strong action was made necessary because the Qadhafi regime had not heeded the first actions of the Council and was on the verge of even greater violence against civilians as it closed in on areas previously dominated by opposition in the east of the country."
Also, you might as well just say every UN mandate is optional, but the core parties basically pledge their support, so you can't back out of that, and it would still be under the umbrella of the UN override. Just because it's "optional" doesn't mean you can't do it under that claim. Or else the US wouldn't have been able to do half the things it's done in the past. I'm not saying that the actions in Libya are completely legal under the Constitution and all that, I am just saying that there is a valid claim to the course of action being taken. There is no law saying specifically: if the UN resolution is considered optional, the President must get Congress approval to uphold the UN mandate. Where does it say that the UN's resolutions, being considered optional, is therefore subject to nullification without a legal compromise or discussion, if the country has already pledged it's full support? You can't just say, "oh no that doesn't count, we won't support you after all." Again, the legal issue/loophole of my 2nd post - there has been controversy over the troops sent over in peace-keeping missions being used combatively, but it hasn't been made illegal.
RE: Highchoolaer
The authority of Congress is first needed before ground troops are sent over to Libya. American lives would be put at risk and congressional majority on sending over troops is required as stated by Bill. "Humanitarian effort" is just a label and could be placed on any similar conflict. Therefore, Congress is set up to make sure the effort isn't just a labeled one, and there is more of a reason for the conflict than protecting things as gasoline prices for instance.
RE: Janeen
I agree that removing Gaddafi from power has a direct relationship to protecting the Libyan civilians. However, to remove Gaddafi from power, clearly hostilities must take place. I also agree completely with Ryan that any hostility, being remote or not, is still considered a hostility. So any risk of American lives or involvement putting the United States at risk should have Congressional approval, or at least approval after 60 to 90 days as stated by the War Powers Act. The true nature of this effort will be examined and if it is a humanitarian effort, than why be concerned with putting its approval at stake under Congress?
Re: Cassie(original post)
I agree with you, I think that NATO should definitely just concentrate on one aspect of the war. They would be more productive and helpful to Libya if they were not divided on the issue. As you said it would probably be better if everyone focused on getting Gaddafi.
Re: Amanda
Yes, Congress definitely should have been notified about the deployment and expense of sending the drones, and even have a say in the situation. But since this is a new fighing mechanism, it isn't fully qualified as being a part of the War Powers Act. Either a new act should be created to support these future fighting forces or the War Powers Act should be revised and amended. Since this is a new tatic, Congress and the President should end their arguments and worry about the current fighting and then come back to the specifics of the Act.
RE: Jenn
I totally agree with you about questio0n one especially in regards to NATO and its peace keeping mission. However in the second part when you commented that Congress was holding back the President from making decisions in Libya, I was wondering why you think that the Libyan civil war constitutes the President taking action without congress? What made it an emergency? Oh and I thought it was way cool that you put up sources for all your outside information since not a lot of people did that for this question.
RE: Cassie
I like that you pointed out the real flaw, which is that there was bad communication between the President, NATO, and Congress. If each part had been willing to give a little and tell the other parts what was begin planned some more wise moves could have been made in Libya especially in regards to NATO and its lack of direction or helpfulness.
Re: Cooper
I just wanted to clarify what you said to make sure that I understand. You agree with me that the US will look like a failure if they pull out, but you still think they should? I agree that the US will not pull out, but you are contradicting yourself.
RE: Caitlyn
I agree with you that the government should tell us their goal for Libya and not fear the media, but it doesn't mean that they don't. I'm just saying that the government might be using this as another excuse for not telling us the full truth about Libya
RE: Nikki
I think Kyle already got it, but what I'm saying is that yes, drones should count as troops. Air force pilots are flying them just as they would a fighter jet, just on a computer screen with a joystick sitting at a base in Germany or Virginia (or wherever else) rather than actually in a plane. Ergo, I feel that Congress should have to approve drones on the fact that they are still capable killing machines, and tax-payer dollars are still lost if one is destroyed.
Re: Cassie
Looking over my second response, my wording was a little confusing. I think that Congress should not approve the movement of troops if our goal is to support peacekeeping operations. The fact that we have troops (or drones) carrying out hostile actions without authorization is the issue.
Re:Janeen
I agree with you that there should be troops in Libya and that the President was right to send them there. However, I think that he should seek Congressional approval. He does not have the right to just send drones and things of that nature without consulting anyone. I think he should go ahead and put it through Congress, but that Congress should approve the action.
RE Jennifer.Kennard:
I agree the War Powers Act should be amended to deal with the matters you stated, and I think certain amendments should be made that deal with UN mandates.
Re:Cassie
I completely agree with you that NATO needs to just get rid of Gaddafi. He is the actual problem and the reason that people are in danger. If NATO just focused on overthrowing him whether that be by killing him or capturing him or imprisoning him, they would be able to keep the civilians safe which was their primary goal anyway. It's kind of a win win!
Re: Nikki
I completely agree with your post. The U.S. involvement was under the U.N. mandate. Now, I think that while I believe that removing Gaddafi from power, the president and congress need to decide their further actions. Like other posters have said, going after Gaddafi will include hostilities, I am not arguing that. But, the first involvement was because of the U.N. mandate.
Re: Taylor
Yes,i agreed.If we wish to keep peace,one thing we can do is to support the positive side and try to get rid of the negative side by attacking them from power using our military. There must be more ways to solve this but this is one of them and i believe this works the best.
Re: Janeen
Well, i think spending millions of dollars to send troops and supplies to Libya should be a congressional decision since its a huge amount of money. Our economy isn't going well lately, so we must consider before we can actually decide to spend this much on Libya. We have to think about our own country before others.
Kevin Kichi
RE: John
I agree that the U.S. is the political power that helps police this world whenever a major conflict happens. That if the goal was to only get rid of Gaddafi it would be an easy matter of spnding in troops and get it over with. I belive also that the U.S. cant be the spear head of every world conflict so im happy that we are in a supporting role in this engagment, leaves the stress of war off U.S. citizens. On the parts about NATO i believe that it has overstayed its welcome alittle, it is doing its job now but it would be fore the best if it was disolved after this was over.
About the War Powers act, i believe that the president is using the proper method in dealing with this conflict in libya. To start off with congress has no say on the recalling of troops because this conflict isn't a war-related conflict, it is a humantraion couse. congress has no authority in this matters. i do understand what John was saying that u.S. lives are being lost so i do hope this wraps up quickly but some loses are to be expected when your a large country such as the U.S
Post a Comment