|
Post by Marshall on Mar 22, 2011 8:09:56 GMT -5
. . . , To me the real lesson vis a vis Iraq is figuring out what happens after we "win". We are in the process of manufacturing a power vaccuum. What makes us think we will like the way it gets filled? What makes us think we can decide who fills it? Even if we manage that, what's our track record like when installing leaders in foreign countries? . . . , I hear ya on that. I suppose WWII (WWI?) were anomalies on the face of the human earth; where somebody wins, and the guys who lose, decide to join the winning side in making a better world in the winner's likeness.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Mar 22, 2011 10:03:32 GMT -5
My apologies for jumping in too quickly. No worries. I went a little off the rails there too. To me the real lesson vis a vis Iraq is figuring out what happens after we "win". We are in the process of manufacturing a power vaccuum. What makes us think we will like the way it gets filled? What makes us think we can decide who fills it? Even if we manage that, what's our track record like when installing leaders in foreign countries? Anyway, its too late now. We broke it. Now its ours. There is no turning back. That's the part of this that shocks me the most. I would have thought Obama understood that there is no such thing as interfering "just a little". We are now stuck in Libya. I sure get your point, Jeff, and in a situation like the one we created in Iraq, where we invaded, overthrew and installed, it's certainly accurate. But I don't think this has to be that way at all. We...which is the UN, not the US...are providing some air cover so the rebels will have half a chance. Can we stay out of it politically if the rebels win? Can we not get in deeper if they begin to lose? Sure we can. Will we? That's a different question, and the one that makes me so nervous. But on the surface, giving a bit of a nudge to some people fighting for freedom from a murderous thug has merit. Tim
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Mar 22, 2011 10:11:37 GMT -5
I just can't see the US casting the sole vote against the UN resolution to prevent a massacre in Libya. That image won't form in my brain. I also can't see voting yes and then leaving all the work to others.
What I can't see, most of all, is increasing our involvement in any major way if the limited effort doesn't work. If the limited effort works, great. If it doesn't, we gave it a shot, which is better than doing nothing while a bloodbath occurs. We shouldn't be prepared to escalate. If others want to do so and the UN gives approval, that's their affair. I hope that's also the President's view.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Mar 22, 2011 10:16:17 GMT -5
Can we stay out of it politically if the rebels win? Can we not get in deeper if they begin to lose? Sure we can. Will we? That's a different question, and the one that makes me so nervous. But on the surface, giving a bit of a nudge to some people fighting for freedom from a murderous thug has merit. +1 Part of what we're all arguing here is what we THINK this means, but no one - not us, anyway - knows yet. If we're out by the end of the week (not that I really think we will be) and we've saved thousands of lives and disrupted Qaddafi, then I'll call it a success. If we're still there ten years from now trying to remake the country in our image, then I'll know that I was wrong all along.
|
|
|
Post by Lonnie on Mar 22, 2011 11:33:48 GMT -5
Dennis Kucinich (sp) is now spouting that Obama's move into Libya is an impeachable offense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2011 11:39:50 GMT -5
BTW (and not that it actually matters), Bush had more coalition partners for Iraq than Obama has for Libya. That's a curious thought. So, buying nominal support from a few non-participating pacific island-republics actually convinced you that Iraq was good policy? Man, I remember thinking at the time that the "coalition" was a much weaker argument for the policy than the mass-hysteria of WMDs. But, apparently, you may be the only person here who honestly believes there was broader international support for Iraq than the Libya adventure. I can recall a lot of heated nationalistic rhetoric in 2003 about how the perpetually ungrateful french, canadians, etc. were turning their backs to us. Heck, you guys even tried to rename "french fries" as "freedom fries". But, it didn't upset some of us, because we knew we had the Malvides on our team. Here's the deal: There now appears to be pretty level international support for this adventure. But, that WILL probably change if a few things go wrong, or it drags on very long. The fear should be we get more determined than the rest of the yes-men at this point, and continue the policy after they leave the room.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Mar 22, 2011 11:41:56 GMT -5
Dennis Kucinich (sp) is now spouting that Obama's move into Libya is an impeachable offense. Even the stopped clock is right twice a day. Article 1 section 8 Congress shall have the power: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; But we didn't get Bush 1 or 2 or Clinton on that so it's not likely to get Obama. Should happen but won't. How about a amendment to clarify. No US military to be stationed on any foreign soil except in time of declared war.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Mar 22, 2011 11:43:34 GMT -5
BTW (and not that it actually matters), Bush had more coalition partners for Iraq than Obama has for Libya. That's a curious thought. So, buying nominal support from a few non-participating pacific island-republics actually convinced you that Iraq was good policy? No. As I explicitly said, my point is not to justify the Iraq war. My point is to refute the "attacks on Libya are acceptable because we have a coalition" argument. BTW, here are the lists... Coalition Countries - Iraq - 2003 Afghanistan, Albania Australia Azerbaijan Bulgaria Colombia Czech Republic Denmark El Salvador Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Georgia Hungary Italy Japan South Korea Latvia Lithuania Macedonia Netherlands Nicaragua Philippines Poland Romania Slovakia Spain Turkey United Kingdom Uzbekistan Coalition - Libya - 2011 United States France United Kingdom Italy Canada Belgium Denmark Norway Qatar Spain Greece Germany Poland Jordan Morocco United Arab Emirate
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Mar 22, 2011 12:06:10 GMT -5
Dennis Kucinich (sp) is now spouting that Obama's move into Libya is an impeachable offense. And he may be right, but if he is, nearly every president since WWII was impeachable enough. And he's right only from a fundamentalist's view of the constitution which ignores everything that has occurred in America which he dislikes since the document was drafted. Doug n' Dennis. What a pair. Tim
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Mar 22, 2011 12:06:44 GMT -5
The important difference is the addition of Arab nations on the Libya list as well as other countries actually doing the fighting.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Mar 22, 2011 12:12:08 GMT -5
Or Eisenhower or Kennedy or Johnson or Nixon or Carter or Reagan. Congress does the impeaching, too. Doesn't seem like this bothers them much. I too wish it took a whole lot more to engage US troops on foreign soil than one administration's hard-on. But the desire to wage war without broad consensus seems to be too attractive to both sides.
Tim
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Mar 22, 2011 12:19:55 GMT -5
Does congress need an invitation before voting? If so, do they need to be asked before giving a consensus or an indication of how they'd vote before being asked?
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 22, 2011 13:27:18 GMT -5
Even if I were to insist on a straight reading of the Constitution, I would give any administration that "inherited" a war a pass. That's part of the problem. Look at the current situation. Two weeks ago the Obama administration finally ruled that we are keeping Guantanamo Bay open indefinitely. It seems that there comes a point at which reality smacks a governing body in the face and they realize that what seemed so easy in the abstract (when merely fishing for votes) becomes an impossibility. Obama did an admirable job of closing down Iraq. Afghanistan is proving more difficult -- but neither were done at his instigation. Heck, Viet Nam was not done at Nixon's instigation, though if you asked the American public I'd be willing to bet that you'd get about 99% poll number that it was "his" war.
But that's part of the problem -- why we were supposed to have congress declare war. And it has the added benefit of:
1. Allowing a more full prosecution of a declared war without political implication to the executor beyond his success in doing what the legislature commissioned him to do 2. Slowing the process of getting into war, knowing that wars inherently mire.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Mar 22, 2011 13:35:28 GMT -5
Good post, John.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Mar 22, 2011 13:36:21 GMT -5
"Heck, Viet Nam was not done at Nixon's instigation, though if you asked the American public I'd be willing to bet that you'd get about 99% poll number that it was "his" war."
Good point. I always thought of VN as Johnson's war even though I think it started back when Ike was president.
Funny thing, the War Powers Act gave the President the authority to send troops anywhere he thought they needed to be as long as he told Congress within 48 hours that he did it and only kept them there for 60 days before asking permission to leave them there.
Nixon vetoed that bill and Congress overruled the veto. I find that amazing. A President vetoed a bill that gave him MORE authority and Congress overturned the veto, which in turn gave them LESS. Wild.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Mar 22, 2011 13:46:08 GMT -5
Yeah, but in this case the reality that smacked him in the face was opposition, trumped up by judicious, ludicrous fear-mongering by his opposition, to putting the detainees anywhere else. Could have closed Gitmo just fine if he'd just been able to move the bad guys to maximum security federal prisons, a reasonable move rendered politically impossible by a well-coordinated misinformation campaign. Now the same guys who pulled that one are pointing to promises unmet. Can't say they're stupid. Well, maybe they are. Denying the other side any wins just denies the country any progress in the long run. It's the creation of a lose-lose situation. Short-term clever. Long-term dumb.
Tim
|
|
|
Post by sekhmet on Mar 22, 2011 14:03:10 GMT -5
Good post Tim. Obstructionist opposition based on power seeking rather than ideology is what is wrong with both of our countries. I am pretty disgusted on both fronts.
Back to who's who in the present mess - the list of who wasn't there in the Iraq debacle but is there now goes like this:
France Canada Belgium Norway Qatar Germany Jordon Morocco UAE
So far, of the who's there list we have Canada and France actively engaged in the offensive. Not sure who else has planes and warships there. But the list is quite different from the former list - as there are more heavy hitters now, and I don't think any of us out here on the rim of civilization feel that this is a US initiative. We are not backing the US, we are backing the people of Libya. Like we didn't in Rwanda.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Mar 22, 2011 14:05:21 GMT -5
I've longed been troubled by the increased power of the executive and the decreased power of Congress. The move towards undeclared wars is part of that problem, but in some ways it's the most defensible example of the power shift. If ICBMs are headed towards you, there isn't time to assemble Congress for a vote. I've never heard of a really good solution to that problem.
Whatever one's view of that issue, I don't think it has anything to do with Libya. Participating in a United Nations action is not the same as declaring war. A declaration of war against Libya would make no sense. A UN action is not one that we control unilaterally. We don't get to decide unilaterally what the goals are or when the effort should be ceased. You could argue, from a legal standpoint, that Congress has consented in advance to participation in UN actions by continuing our membership with at least constructive knowledge of what that may entail. From a practical standpoint, though, I think presidents would be wise to seek Congressional resolutions of support for participation in UN actions, if not in advance then as promptly as possible. While I don't disagree with what we've done, I think Obama's handling of the Libya situation has been deficient in a couple of ways, one of which is leaving Congress out of the loop.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Mar 22, 2011 14:12:49 GMT -5
I've longed been troubled by the increased power of the executive and the decreased power of Congress. The move towards undeclared wars is part of that problem, but in some ways it's the most defensible example of the power shift. If ICBMs are headed towards you, there isn't time to assemble Congress for a vote. I've never heard of a really good solution to that problem. Actually, I think Obama articulated it quite well when he said: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action. I find that formulation to be deeply troubling...the idea that an otherwise unconstitutional action can be made constitutional because of UN approval.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Mar 22, 2011 14:20:20 GMT -5
The big problem with Gitmo is that we have no legal standing to hold the guys. If we bring them to the States, they would have to go by our good old fashioned "innocent until proven guilty" ideal and that rule was just not how those guys were gathered up. In many cases we have no evidence they did anything. In other cases the evidence was gathered via torture or we paid people to get folks that they thought were bad guys (which resulted in folks being snatched off the street for the copious bounty money). In other words, the previous administration was so lose with the law that if we were to get real law and order anywhere near those guys we would have to set them free and kiss them on the head and say we were sorry. Thing is, now that we have locked them up for 10 years, many of them have either been discovered to be or have become real honest to goodness badasses. Now we are screwed. If we let them go and they have given us information, they will be killed and our laws won't allow that. If we let them go and they didn't give us information, they will turn around and attack us and common sense won't allow that. They are termed 'too dangerous to transfer but not feasible for prosecution'. How sad is that? Country of laws my butt.
If we could have just moved them to a Max Prison somewhere that would have been fine but as was pointed out, Congress screamed like school girls that these bad guys would go running rampant through our streets attacking our women folk. The political heat prevented the only workable solution. Thanks guys. But convincing Obama to leave the place they can now accuse him of either telling a lie or being an idiot or both. The main reason he changed his mind was because Congress voted to defund any program that would close the place. Now enough people have examined their records to make the prison option no longer valid due to the reasons listed above.
So now the USA has, for lack of a better term, our own Gulag. A prison, outside the rule of law, where we can send people captured on circumstantial or no evidence without full access to legal representation or outside contact and hold them there forever and ever amen.
Imagine what this country had to sink to that the Supreme Court had to rule that prisoners of war were required to be covered by the Geneva Convention because the US government had decided they did not qualify.
|
|