US presidents must get Congressional consent to commit the military to armed conflict. This is what the War Powers Act of 1973 requires. But almost every president since WWII has ignored it. President Obama is the latest to do so. This, in his vain effort to get rid of Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi.
The War in Libya
But at least Congress is debating the issue this time. In fact, the debate is generating more fireworks than the actual bombing of Libya. Congress is trying to force Obama to comply.
Under the act, the President can only send combat troops into battle or into areas where ‘imminent’ hostilities are likely, for 60 days without either a declaration of war by Congress or a specific Congressional mandate. …
The act, however, does not specify what Congress can do if the President refuses to comply with the act
(New York Times, March 28, 1984)
Obama is already in breach. So it’s up to Congress to use whatever powers it has to compel compliance. But don’t hold your breath.
Meanwhile, politicians are hurling rhetorical grenades from both sides of this debate. But, as they do, bear these two points in mind:
A scorned Congress passed this Act in the wake of undeclared wars in Korea and Vietnam. This, to remind the president that only it has the authority under the US Constitution to declare war; and
The last time Congress exercised its duty to declare war was during World War II. Yet presidents have waged many wars since then. For example, they have done so in Grenada, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
Why is Congress trying to limit Obama’s authority?
There’s no gainsaying the arbitrary, if not discriminatory, nature of this debate. After all, Obama is only doing what other presidents have done – with nary a Congressional peep.
Even so, nobody believes Congress will do the only thing it can do to check Obama. That, of course, is to cut off funds for the war in Libya.
Yet here’s the tortured reasoning Obama is giving for ignoring the act:
US operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, US casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors.
(Los Angeles Times, June 21, 2011)
This is true. But it posits an untenable definition of war. Obama is saying this is not war because the US is only launching missiles. But he should tell that to the Libyans on the receiving end of those missiles. Especially given that they have no ability to return fire.
In fact, America is as much at war in Libya as it is in Afghanistan and Iraq. And “victory” in this case seems doomed to be every bit as elusive and pyrrhic.
That said, I don’t blame Obama for not seeking congressional consent. But he could have done a better job of informing Congress about his hostile intentions.
I doubt he has much regard for his predecessor, George W. Bush. And I suspect the feeling is mutual. But Obama could cite the precedent Bush set.
After all, Bush spent much of his presidency launching missiles into Pakistan. And that was from predator drones operated by U.S. troops sitting in Nevada and Virginia. Yet his disregard for (or violation of) the War Powers Act never received this level of scrutiny.
At least Bill Clinton could argue that he never breached the act. Because his wars – in Sudan and, yes, even Afghanistan – never exceeded 90 days. Never mind the wag-the-dog suspicions that dogged his wars.
He wanted to divert attention from his affair with Monica Lewinsky. That was the prevailing suspicion. (But Clinton got Senate approval for his bombing of the former Yugoslavia.)
I just wish Obama had called Congress’s bluff by forcing them to defund his war effort. That would have been more honest and principled. Instead, he’s insulting our intelligence with legal justifications that make no sense whatsoever.
Meanwhile, Obama is also waging armed conflict in Pakistan and Yemen. So you might wonder why Congress is raising the War Powers Act only in relation to the conflict in Libya.
Alas, the answer is sheer political expediency, if not hypocrisy.