Home / Culture and Society / Presidential Clarity

Presidential Clarity

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

President Obama recently authorized airstrikes and tomahawk cruise missile attacks on the country of Libya. This was in response to Muammar Qadhafi’s brutal attacks on his own people, trying to squash rebel forces in Benghazi. These airstrikes are very appropriate given the situation in Libya, however the lack of candor on the part of President Obama is not.

The president should have consulted Congress before he authorized such an attack, as well as informed the American people of his intentions. As a free society, the United states people are very likely to back the president in an historical moment such as this. Not since 1969 has the nation of Libya experienced new leadership and even longer since they have tasted freedom. Unfortunat,ely we are not clear as to the true intentions of these attacks. On the one hand we are told by the White House that our goal is to install a democracy, yet on the other, we are told that our involvement with this “kinetic military action” is only temporary.

I do not agree with Rep. Dennis Kucinich that President Obama’s use of the military in this moment is unconstitutional or warrants impeachment. A president is not required to consult with the American people or with the congress before engaging in a military operation, even if it is in poor judgment to do so. However, he cannot commit our military to a conflict for more than 90 days without congressional approval, per the War Powers Act. This act allows the president to use the military as a temporary means to bring peace to a violent region, but not to commit our boys to a long-term conflict on the ground. Congress still maintains its right as the sole body that can declare war on another nation.

The White House’s claim that we are not in a war, though technically true, is not entirely accurate. Libya is current in a civil war, which is when two factions are fighting for control of a country. We are involved in a war, we just have not declared war. At this point our involvement with Libya more closely relates to the Vietnam conflict than either Iraq or Afghanistan.

I, for one, am for the removal of Qadhafi as he has lost legitimacy to rule his country. However I am not for our full military involvement in his ousting. We need to support the rebels with airstrikes, while providing other support, such as munitions and food to their troops. The president needs to state clearly what his intentions are in our involvement with Libya, without concern for future votes. The job of the president is not to do what is right to win votes, but to do what is right even if that means votes are lost.
The president has not come close to fulfilling any of his campaign promises, change has not come. If anything, he has followed George W. Bush’s mantra of ‘Stay the Course.’ President Obama could improve the image of his presidency in the eyes of all Americans if he would be honest, upfront, and consistent with his policy.

Powered by

About Chris Ballard

  • Doug Hunter

    The war was sold as a humanitarian mission to save civilians and as a no-fly zone.. the reality is much different, they’re not protecting civilians, they’re helping the rebels.

    Is that not lying to take us to war? Is that not war under false pretenses?

  • Chris Ballard

    Remember we are not at war, technically. The military action we are involved in wasn’t sold as anything, we woke up one morning and the government had bombed Libya. The president said before the attacks that we were in support of the no-fly zone, but made no indication that we were going to use our military to enforce it.

    Helping the rebels is humanitarian because they are trying to dispose a totalitarian dictator who actively trying to kill anyone who opposes his regime.

  • Doug Hunter

    Chris, I don’t buy the legalistic interpretation of war being sold. If a state is bombing and killing people to achieve a political goal in another country it’s war in my book. Certain groups have an interest in redefining it to suit their own needs (i.e., if we don’t call it war we can avoid __________), I’m not going to be an active participant in helping them.

    Did you forget that we fought a bloody war killing a half million people so that the federal government could maintain it’s power? Virtually all governments will fight to defend themselves, will take police action against those seeking to overthrow the authority. News was made this last week when someone minting silver ‘liberty’ coins was framed as a ‘terrorist’ by those in our government (see how they redefine words like terrorism and war to suit their ends) One man’s terrorist is another’s freeedom fighter I suppose. So who are these rebels we’re fighting for? Are they the same group in eastern Libya, the area responsible for one of the highest density of foreign fighters in Iraq, that is support by Al Quaeda? Are they the ones led by Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi veteran recruiter/fighter in Iraq/Afghanistan?

    Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links

    NC Man Convicted of Domestic Terrorism for Making Own Coins

    Why support theocracy over thugocracy when there is zero national interest, no money for it, the risk of bloodshed, and the outcome is completely unknown? Will we be creating a democracy or another Iran? Will the prolonged war perhaps over many months be more of a humanitarian disaster than what would have occured has we let the Colonel end the rebellion last week? Maybe it’ll be over in another month and a stable, modern democracy will emerge, but that’s pretty much the same hope Bush held for Iraq. Have we learned nothing?