As CNN reported today:
“We are not engaged in militarily-driven regime change,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters. Instead, the administration is engaged in “time-limited, scope-limited” action with other countries to protect civilians from forces loyal to strongman Moammar Gadhafi. (CNN, March 24, 2011)
Is the Executive of the United States granted the constitutional power of a “time-limited, scope-limited” action? As I read the constitution (and I read it rather literally), it states that ONLY Congress has the power to declare war in Article I. Article II states that the president is commander in chief when the armed forces have been called into service.
So, is it war or not in Libya? Simply because Obama has no clear objective in fighting this “time-limited, scope-limited” action, should we simply give him a pass and let him use the military—manned by our children and neighbors, our precious national assets—for his ego, his will to power? From what I can tell, especially when Obama called in the orders to attack while traveling in Brazil, he gave no real reasons or justification for adding yet another war (or whatever you want to call it) to the two in which we’re already engaged, not to mention our defending countries throughout the world at this point with our post-WWII and Cold War bases.
Here’s the damage so far (as of Thursday afternoon, March 24, 2011):
For one thing, the fight is intensifying, not dropping off. On Sunday, the U.S.-led coalition flew 60 sorties over Libya; Monday it flew nearly 80; on Wednesday it flew 175. At this moment, American pilots are bombing and shooting at Gadhafi’s armor and artillery units on the outskirts of Libyan cities. Off the shores of Libya, a bevy of Navy ships and subs have launched over 160 Tomahawk missiles. (Daniel Larison, Obama Administration Lies at Dan McCarthy’s site, amconmag.com)
Books on the topic of this essay may be found in The Imaginative Conservative Bookstore. The Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now.