A Foolish and Unconstitutional War

[John81]

A Foolish and Unconstitutional War
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Wednesday - March 23, 2011

"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."

So said constitutional scholar and Senator Barack Obama in December 2007 -- the same man who, this weekend, ordered U.S. air and missile strikes on Libya without any authorization from Congress.

Obama did win the support of Gabon in the Security Council, but failed with Germany. With a phone call to acquitted rapist Jacob Zuma, he got South Africa to sign on, but not Brazil, Russia, India or China. All four abstained.

This is not the world's war. This is Obama's war.

The U.S. Navy fired almost all the cruise missiles that hit Libya as the U.S. Air Force attacked with B-2 bombers, F-15s and F-16s.

"To be clear, this is a U.S.-led operation," said Vice Adm. William Gortney.

"In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies," said Winston Churchill. Obama is a quick study.

In his Friday ultimatum, he said, "We are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal -- specifically, the protection of civilians in Libya."

Why, then, did we strike Tripoli and Moammar Gadhafi's compound?

So many U.S. missiles and bombs have struck Libya that the Arab League is bailing out. League chief Amr Moussa has called an emergency meeting of the 22 Arab states to discuss attacks that have "led to the deaths and injuries of many Libyan civilians." We asked for a no-fly zone, said Moussa, not the "bombardment of civilians."

What caused Obama's about-face from the Pentagon position that imposing a no-fly zone on Libya was an unwise act of war?

According to The New York Times, National Security Council aide Samantha Power, U.N. envoy Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton flipped him. The three sisters feel guilty about us not invading Rwanda when Hutu were butchering Tutsi.

They did not want to be seen as standing by when Gadhafi took Benghazi, which he would have done, ending the war in days, had we not intervened.

While Obama is no longer saying Gadhafi must go, Hillary insists that has to be the outcome. No question who wears the pants here.

As U.S. prestige and power are committed, if Gadhafi survives, he will have defeated Obama and NATO. Hence, we must now finish him and his regime to avert a U.S. humiliation and prevent another Lockerbie.

The Arab League and African Union are denouncing us, but al-Qaida is with us. For eastern Libya provided more than its fair share of jihadists to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq. And jihadists are prominent among the rebels we just rescued.

Yet, even as Obama was announcing U.S. intervention to prevent "unspeakable atrocities," security police of Yemen's President Saleh, using sniper rifles, massacred 45 peaceful protesters and wounded 270. Most of the dead were shot in the head or neck, the work of marksmen.

Had Mahmoud Ahmadinejad done this in Tehran, would U.S. protests have been so muted?

In Bahrain, 2,000 Saudi soldiers and troops from emirates of the Gulf have intervened to save King Khalifa, whose throne was threatened by Shia demonstrators in the Pearl roundabout in Manama. The town square was surrounded, the Shia driven out, the 300-foot Pearl monument destroyed.

This crackdown on Bahrain's Shia has been denounced by Iran and Iraq. Grand Ayatollah Sistani, most revered figure in the Shia world, ordered seminaries shut in protest. This is serious business.

Not only are the Shia dominant in Iran, and in Iraq after the Americans ousted the Sunni-dominated Baathist Party, they are heavily concentrated in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, where the oil deposits are located.

They are a majority in Bahrain, where the U.S. Fifth Fleet is based. Shia Hezbollah is now the dominant military and political force in Lebanon.

Riyadh must have regarded the threat to Bahrain a grave one to have so exacerbated the religious divide and raised the specter of sectarian war.

Yet, again, why are we bombing Libya?

Gadhafi did not attack the West. He faced an uprising to dethrone him and rallied his troops to crush it, as any ruthless ruler would have done. We have no vital interest in who wins his civil war.

Indeed, Gadhafi has asked of Obama, "If you found them taking over American cities by force of arms, what would you do?"

Well, when the South fired on Fort Sumter, killing no one, Abraham Lincoln blockaded every Southern port, sent Gen. Sherman to burn Atlanta and pillage Georgia and South Carolina, and Gen. Sheridan to ravage the Shenandoah. He locked up editors and shut down legislatures and fought a four-year war of reconquest that killed 620,000 Americans -- a few more than have died in Gadhafi's four-week war.

Good thing we didn't have an "international community" back then.

The Royal Navy would have been bombarding Lincoln's America.

SOURCE: http://buchanan.org/blog/a-foolish-and-unconstitutional-war-4631

[Covenanter]

"We" will never understand. "Our" attitude is that to stop people killing each other, we must kill them instead of letting them kill each other. Libya has oil, Rwanda hasn't, nor has Zimbabwe.

At the same time, "Christian" military action becomes a "crusade" with all that that means to the Muslims.

Have "we" a God-given duty to keep peace in the world by the use of "our" military strength?

Or have we a God-given Gospel of peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ?

It seems that democracy has become the election of the next dictator. Rule for the majority & oppression of all the minorities, especially Christians.

[DennisD]

I don't think the Arab League understood what they were asking for when they asked for a No Fly Zone.

I would have rather this didn't concern us and we had let France and other European nations deal with it if they felt it was their business.

[Guest]

We should not be involved in Libya

[John81]

Agreed. The internal affairs of Libya are their own business. Likely as not, without intervention the civil war in Libya would be over now and the country would busy reorganizing. As it is, the West has destroyed multiple millions of dollars in infrastructure, killed untold numbers of Libyans, and greatly prolonged the civil war. In doing this they have added to the list of reasons many Muslims already see to consider the West, America in particular, as being at war with Islam.

No doubt the Arab League simply wanted Western war planes to fly over Libya to keep Libyan war planes from the air. They never requested or wanted the barrage of missle and air strikes. That said, they should have looked at past experiences with how America deals with such things and realized what would happen if they invited the nose of the camel into their tent.

Excuses for continual wars and meddlings in other nations internal affairs ring hollow...for the children...to protect civilians...for the sake of democracy.

America is in a shambles, as once was the Roman Empire, and rather than address the problems at home, just like the Romans before them, American leaders distract attention to constant foreign "threats" and continual wars abroad.

[DennisD]

Agreed. The internal affairs of Libya are their own business. Likely as not, without intervention the civil war in Libya would be over now and the country would busy reorganizing. As it is, the West has destroyed multiple millions of dollars in infrastructure, killed untold numbers of Libyans, and greatly prolonged the civil war. In doing this they have added to the list of reasons many Muslims already see to consider the West, America in particular, as being at war with Islam.

No doubt the Arab League simply wanted Western war planes to fly over Libya to keep Libyan war planes from the air. They never requested or wanted the barrage of missle and air strikes. That said, they should have looked at past experiences with how America deals with such things and realized what would happen if they invited the nose of the camel into their tent.

Excuses for continual wars and meddlings in other nations internal affairs ring hollow...for the children...to protect civilians...for the sake of democracy.

America is in a shambles, as once was the Roman Empire, and rather than address the problems at home, just like the Romans before them, American leaders distract attention to constant foreign "threats" and continual wars abroad.

I don't agree we should be in Libya but wanted to clarify something, a No Fly Zone is not just flying some planes around the air. That's why I said I don't think the Arab League understood what they were asking for. Before a No Fly Zone can be put into place, all surface to air missile platforms need to be destroyed and anything else that is a threat to aircraft. Of course, bombing tanks and stuff probably wasn't necessary...since doubt they could hit a fighter jet or something lol.

[John81]

I don't agree we should be in Libya but wanted to clarify something, a No Fly Zone is not just flying some planes around the air. That's why I said I don't think the Arab League understood what they were asking for. Before a No Fly Zone can be put into place, all surface to air missile platforms need to be destroyed and anything else that is a threat to aircraft. Of course, bombing tanks and stuff probably wasn't necessary...since doubt they could hit a fighter jet or something lol.

True, but again, it doesn't seem the Arab League considered all this. As you say, the taking out of anti-aircraft capabilities would be seen as a necessary aspect of creating a no-fly zone. The West went well beyond that in hitting many targets which had nothing to do with such matters. According to the news, the strikes continue.

[DennisD]

True, but again, it doesn't seem the Arab League considered all this. As you say, the taking out of anti-aircraft capabilities would be seen as a necessary aspect of creating a no-fly zone. The West went well beyond that in hitting many targets which had nothing to do with such matters. According to the news, the strikes continue.

You're right, it seems they didn't. I blame France (since they were the first to strike)

Most (that are for this) will tell you it's humanitarian by destroying regime forces and allowing the opposition to retaliate. Seems all the coalition did (as you said) is extend the bloodshed.

[John81]

You're right, it seems they didn't. I blame France (since they were the first to strike)

Most (that are for this) will tell you it's humanitarian by destroying regime forces and allowing the opposition to retaliate. Seems all the coalition did (as you said) is extend the bloodshed.

Yes, that's their claim but it doesn't hold water. They also proclaim how horrible Gadafi is and how he must be replaced, while at the same time saying Gadafi is NOT a target, yet they have no idea which radical faction might take power for themselves if Gadafi is dethroned. Elements of Al Quida and other militant groups are involved in the uprising, though it seems the "experts" for the West can't really say who it is that's leading the uprising. Considering the lack of information, it's possible the West could be aiding Bin Laden!

[John81]

UN intervention into Libya an ominous precedent for Israel

Center for Security Policy | Mar 21, 2011
By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

There are many reasons to be worried about the bridge-leap the Obama Administration has just undertaken in its war with Muammar Gaddafi. How it will all end is just one of them.

Particularly concerning is the prospect that what we might call the Gaddafi Precedent will be used in the not-to-distant future to justify and threaten the use of U.S. military forces against an American ally: Israel.

Here's how such a seemingly impossible scenario might eventuate:

It begins with the Palestinian Authority seeking a UN Security Council resolution that would recognize its unilateral declaration of statehood. Three top female officials in the Obama administration reprise roles they played in the Council's recent action on Libya: U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, a vehement critic of Israel, urges that the United States support (or at least not veto) the Palestinians' gambit. She is supported by the senior director for multilateral affairs at the National Security Council, Samantha Power, who in the past argued for landing a "mammoth force" of American troops to protect the Palestinians from Israel. Ditto Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose unalloyed sympathy for the Palestinian cause dates back at least to her days as First Lady.

This resolution enjoys the support of the other four veto-wielding Security Council members - Russia, China, Britain and France - as well as the all of the other non-permanent members except India, which joins the United States in abstaining. As a result, it is adopted with overwhelming support from what is known as the "international community."
Click here for complete article:
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18676.xml

Distributed by www.worldviewweekend.com

[Invicta]

Gadafi ordered the Lockerbie bombing. As such he should be a legitimate target.

In a demonstration outside the Libyam embassy in 1984 WPC Yvonne Fletcher was shot by somebody in the embassy. The Libyans refused to hand over the culprit as he had diplomatic immunity, but later the Libyan government finally accepted responsibility for her death and agreed to pay compensation to her family. One of the suspects is now in rebel hands and was interviewed on the news today, and of course, denied he was there at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yvonne_Fletcher.

[John81]

Gadafi ordered the Lockerbie bombing. As such he should be a legitimate target.

In a demonstration outside the Libyam embassy in 1984 WPC Yvonne Fletcher was shot by somebody in the embassy. The Libyans refused to hand over the culprit as he had diplomatic immunity, but later the Libyan government finally accepted responsibility for her death and agreed to pay compensation to her family. One of the suspects is now in rebel hands and was interviewed on the news today, and of course, denied he was there at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yvonne_Fletcher.

For those actions, Gadafi should have been dealt with back then. He wasn't, to the shame of those in charge at the time.

The actions in Libya now are unrelated and it's clear from the conflicting statements that nobody in the "coalition" knows what the actual goals are or the outcome they desire before military operations will be halted.

When the French demanded American support for this action in Libya, they should have been reminded of their response to Ronald Reagan when he requested permission to fly bombers over French air space to bomb Libya because of their involvement in terrorist attacks against Americans.

[Invicta]

For those actions, Gadafi should have been dealt with back then. He wasn't, to the shame of those in charge at the time.

The actions in Libya now are unrelated and it's clear from the conflicting statements that nobody in the "coalition" knows what the actual goals are or the outcome they desire before military operations will be halted.

When the French demanded American support for this action in Libya, they should have been reminded of their response to Ronald Reagan when he requested permission to fly bombers over French air space to bomb Libya because of their involvement in terrorist attacks against Americans.

If Gadafi is still in power at the end of this, it would have all been in vain as he will procede as before and just murder anyone involved in the protests, Libya has been a major staging post for illegal immigtants into Europe. If he is still in power at the end of this, the immigration is likely to dramatically increase. Many immigrants travel from Libya in unsafe and overcrowded ramshackle boats, many of which sink drowning their occupants, while trying to reach Italy, and other southern European countries.

I don't think France needed the US, I believe that they have the airpower to do the job themselves, but they did need US backing in the UN. Edited March 25, 2011 by Invicta

[John81]

If Gadafi is still in power at the end of this, it would have all been in vain as he will procede as before and just murder anyone involved in the protests, Libya has been a major staging post for illegal immigtants into Europe. If he is still in power at the end of this, the immigration is likely to dramatically increase. Many immigrants travel from Libya in unsafe and overcrowded ramshackle boats, many of which sink drowning their occupants, while trying to reach Italy, and other southern European countries.

I don't think France needed the US, I believe that they have the airpower to do the job themselves, but they did need US backing in the UN.

True, but there is the problem. According to most statements, the ONLY goal of the mission is to prevent attacks upon civilians. Several have publically stated that Gadafi is not a target. Of course, as you rightly say, if Gadafi still rules when (if?) the coalition leaves, what has really been accomplished?

Yes, France wanted the US vote, but they also wanted US resources.

In the 80s when President Reagan determined to bomb Libya for their support of terrorist attacks, England readily gave permission for American bombers to take off from English bases, but France refused to allow them to fly over their air space for fear of Gadafi. American bombers had to fly from England, all around Europe and come to Libya via the Straits of Gibralter, and then back again.

[JerryNumbers]

Jas 4:1 ¶ From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?

That says it all.