"If it looks like a war, it's a war"said Dennis Kucinich to CNN, but he's wrong. Many things look like wars and many things have been sold to us as wars that aren't wars. Johnson's War on Poverty? The war on Drugs? calling it a war doesn't make it so nor does saying it is when it isn't. The 1968 Democratic convention looked and smelled like a war -- maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.
Of course invoking the War Powers Resolution of 1973 finally gives the dogs something to bark about and they've been looking for impeachment arguments since election day, but is the current hoopla about our support of NATO actions in Syria based on concern for the law or another congressional burlesque show attempt to overturn an election they lost for good reason?
It looks like a war to the Republicans too but then, Birth of a Nation looks like history to them. Reagan's invasion of Granada and Bush's invasion of Panama looked pretty much like wars as well, but although both those presidents did report to Congress under the War Powers Resolution they did so without citing section 4(a)(1) which would require approval to continue after 60 days. In both cases hostilities ceased before the 60 day period even though troops remained in Panama and the question was deemed moot.
The question then hinges on whether American forces and personnel are still involved in hostilities 60 days after the initial air strikes and are still substantially in harms way. Obama argues that they are not, that they are only providing support for an embargo. His opponents disagree, but then they disagree with his presence in office and everything he says or does even when it mirrors their own sentiments. Scandal has been cried more often than Wolf, but while I tend to see the argument in similar light as the White House does, I Wish he could have done what Bush did by taking action when Congress was out of session, but not having had that option, I wish he would simply remove this issue from the spotlight and allow Congress to have their way. If nothing else it would take my Representative Tom "Looney" Rooney off the soapbox and out of my inbox for a while.
I think NATO can do without us and if this is so important to the Arab League, they can use some of that firepower we sold them.
"It looks like a war to the Republicans too but then, Birth of a Nation looks like history to them."
ReplyDeleteGreat line!
Korea was a "police action." And on, and on, and on. Definitions of military actions have never been the deciding factor of an ongoing offense.
Certainly the Republicans goal, is to find some reason to call for impeachment.
NATO is not useless, especially since the break up of the USSR. The national lines are more like pre WW I, when constant boarder fights wer3e the norm., until WW I broke out. NATO can be helpful to keep agression from getting out of hand.
I used to be a huge peace-nik, and I am a huge fan of Dennis Kucinich, but at times I find him a tad unrealistic.
ReplyDeleteAs to the GOP's new-found commitment to World Peace, I find that highly suspect. As it's been said, if the President walked on water they'd say "President Can't Swim!" and if he turned water into wine they'd say he was an alcoholic.
I have been less than enthusiastic about our recent Middle Eastern Interventions, but then I watch the videos and realize I'd have a hard time saying that helping is wrong.
I wish we could help in Darfur and the Sudan, but I am realistic enough to understand that when we offer support to these revolutions, we are acting in our own best interests. A less unstable Middle East in which the increasingly modern and worldly younger generation moves away from their barbaric past seems like as good a thing as any to try.
Besides, as I recall, back in the early days of Bush's wars, NATO wasn't entirely enthusiastic about helping, but they did, and they hung in there for a lot of years. Especially considering the whole thing was based on either lies or ridiculously bad intelligence, or some reprehensible combination of the two. So when they come to us and say, hey, we need you -- well, we do kind of owe them.
Interestingly, the Korean War, the Gulf War, the multinational forces in Lebanon, the Bosnian War, and the 2004 Haitian Rebellion were all authorized by United Nations Security Council Resolutions and funded by appropriations from Congress, as is the the current military intervention in Libya. None of the aforementioned were the result of a formal declaration of war by Congress, which hasn't occurred since WWII.
ReplyDeleteThe Gulf War was also authorized by Congress as was the Vietnam War but there was no formal declaration of war. The constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution has never been established but it has generally been followed since its passage in 1973 (a direct response to the length of the Vietnam War w/ no declaration) except in the Kosovo war engagement under Clinton.
The Constitution never uses the phrase/declaration of war." Article 1, Section 8 just states that "Congress shall have power to...declare war." There has been debate since the War of 1812 as to exactly what that means in terms of presidential authority. The default position has been that presidents may take defensive actions prior to congressional approval but they can't instigate war without prior congressional say so.
Just for points of comparison, other UN Security Council Resolution conflicts have exceeded 90 days, Korea (3 years), Lebanon (6 years),Gulf War (1 year).
Then there are Afghanistan and Iraq, begun in 2001 and 2003 respectively, eventually authorized by Congress but neither has a formal declaration of war.
In perspective,the much ado being made about Obama and Libya is just more of the same old s**t.
Sheria,
ReplyDeleteYou're well informed as usual - thanks. To me it's only one more attempt to overturn an election through impeachment. Win ugly, win dirty and if you lose topple the opponent in any way you can.
You'd think a party that pretends to be so popular wouldn't have to resort to this sort of thing. And again, the formula of using everything Bush was charged with as a template smells just like the formula of going after Clinton using all the same words and charges used against Nixon.