World  
comments_image Comments

Libya: Obama Tries to Explain an Undeclared War

Presidents are not supposed to start wars, especially wars that are offensive rather than defensive in nature.
 
 
Share
 
 
 
 


The following article first appeared on the Nation.com.  For more great content from the Nation, sign up for their email newsletters here.

President Obama finally got around to speaking to the American people about the fact that he has led the country into a third war. 

 


The speech was, to no one's surprise, ably delivered. The president spoke with emotional and rhetorical power of how he felt there had been a need to intervene in order to prevent "a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world." He explained how there are times "when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are." He decried the temptation "to turn away from the world" and promised that "wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States."


Those are noble sentiments, well expressed. 

 


Unfortunately, he also spoke about how he had initiated the way on his own: "I ordered warships into the Mediterranean." I refused to let that happen." "I authorized military action..." "At my direction..."




The problem is that presidents are not supposed to start wars, especially wars of whim that are offensive rather than defensive in nature. That was the complaint against George W. Bush when he failed to obtain a declaration of war before ordering the invasion of Iraq, which is the ongoing complaint against Obama for maintaining the undeclared wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And that is the legitimate and necessary complaint against Obama now, a complaint that should come not just from opponents of the military intervention but supporters who want that intervention to be lawful and legitimate.



The president did not address the fact that the Libyan adventure is an undeclared war. In fact, he barely mentioned the Congress that is supposed to declare wars, saying only: "And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973."

 

But the Constitution does not discuss "consulting the bipartisan leadership..." It says that: "Congress shall have the power... to declare war, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water." 

 


That was the point that Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, made with regard to the speech.



 


Suggesting that "President Obama owes the nation an explanation as to why he had time to consult with 15 members of the UN Security Council, 22 members of the Arab League, and later, with 28 members of NATO, to garner support for an attack with Great Britain and France, but had no time to come to the United States Congress for prior authorization before attacking Libya," Kucinich argued that: “Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution is very clear. It is Congress that determines when our nation goes to war. President Obama superseded that authority and bought a new war for the American people without Congressional approval. We must know what it will cost, how long it will last, what is the end game, and when will NATO -- whose military bills we pay -- get out."



 


Kucinich continued: “President Obama’s failure to come to Congress, as required by the Constitution, left us without the opportunity to have a full and ample debate on the merits of military intervention in Libya. As such, I intend to offer a bipartisan amendment to cut off funds for U.S. participation in the war to the next funding measure. I want to thank Representatives Ron Paul (R-TX), Walter Jones (R-NC), Tom McClintock (R-CA), Pete Stark (D-CA) and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) for their co-sponsorship of the amendment."



 

 
See more stories tagged with: