Decisive Moment in Libyan Civil War

[jordan179]

Right now, Gaddafi remains in control only of his capital city of Tripoli. The rebels are advancing on Tripoli from the east, attacking Ras Lanouf. Gaddafi is counterattacking the rebel city of Zawiya, 30 miles west of Tripoli. Whichever side manages to develop offensive momentum first may win the civil war

Comments

[shockwave77598]

But would not any president ordering an attack on a foreign nation be a defacto declaration of war? And aside from the War Powers Act, does not the constitution of the US PROHIBIT that, giving the power to declare war to Congress instead?

I agree that the time is now to help these folks. But I think smuggling them Stinger missiles (with weak battery backedup ram holding the software, like we did in Afghanistan in the 80s) and ammo is a better solution than risking OUR troops. Give them some firepower and let them fight. It worked in AF, not once but twice. Let them take down their own dictator and make it look like we aren't involved (for the EU to get all pissy about).

[banner]

The President has the right to send the military anywhere he wants to. Congress can not stop him short of impeachment. That's the law. Congress can refuse of course to -pay- for it. But that's all they can do.

[jordan179]

Plus, the 2001 resolution would cover Libya, because of Gaddafi's acts of war against America.

[jordan179]

But would not any president ordering an attack on a foreign nation be a defacto declaration of war? And aside from the War Powers Act, does not the constitution of the US PROHIBIT that, giving the power to declare war to Congress instead?

Obama can order intervention without a declaration provided that the intervention is short and small enough that Congress doesn't have to vote additional funds. He could also declare that, with the revelation that Gaddafi did in fact authorize the Lockerbie bombing, an intervention fell under the 2001 authorization of war against the Terrorist States. What's more, because Gaddafi would fall without his air, armor and artillery forces -- all of which could be destroyed in less than a month of air attack -- he could be in and out of it before Congress even became involved.

And who really cares what Old Europe thinks? They've rendered themselves irrelevant to serious diplomatic matters. Their own choice.

[igorilla]

Do you need a radical Islamists ruled Libya ?

[jordan179]

No. But we do have a responsibility to the Americans slain at Lockerbie to avenge them. Better late than never.

If "a radical Islamist ruled Libya" then emerges, hey, there's no law of nature saying that Libya can't be curb-stomped as many times as she volunteers for the role of "American punching bag." It's up to the Libyans to avoid this role, which they can easily do by just not committing acts of war against us.

[igorilla]

It's a pity that American stomping ability isn't the same as we all wish it is - see Iran, see Syria, see Lebanon, see North Korea

[polaris93]

Yes. The normal way of things is that we avenge our dead and act to prevent, to the extent possible, the killing of any more innocent Americans. Of course, Obama isn't normal . . .

[luagha]

Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one.

The limit on Obama's ability to engage in acts of war are 1. Congress's refusal to pay for it and 2. their ability to impeach him and remove him from office.

You can say it's an act of war as much as you like. And Libya would be justified in attacking us back for it. And any friend of Libya who wanted to attack us back for it could do so. And they could get killed for it.

We are in the realm of military force now, and economic force and legal force have become secondary.

[chris_gerrib]

I'm sorry - I get very tired of people lecturing me that we can't provide health care to everybody because it violates the Constitution who then turn around and tell me that going to war without Congressional approval is okay despite a clear Constitutional prohibition.

If you want to be a strict constructionist on the Constitution, then be one. Stop picking and chosing which clauses you want to follow. Or at least don't get upset if somebody else picks a different set of clauses.

[ford_prefect42]

Except that there is no constitutional prohibition. It states that only congress can declare war, but it says *nothing* about specific acts that may or may not be considered acts of war. In fact, it states that the president is the "commander in chief" of the armed forces, without placing any particular limitations on his power.

Besides, as a follower of the "living document" creed, your opinion of what it says is utterly meaningless.

[chris_gerrib]

International law. That's why the surprise attack at Pearl Harbor was a "day of infamy."

So you want to argue that bombing and landing troops could possibly be NOT considered acts of war? On what planet?

The limitation placed on the President's Commander in Chief power is that he can't start a war without Congress's approval. If you want to twist the C-in-C clause to read otherwise, welcome to the "living constitution" club.

[ford_prefect42]

The problem:

Okay, say that we do that, and blow up Ghadaffis tanks. Then the protestors take power, they do what they do, which is genearlly have a massacre. And *we supported it*. this would then be just another instance in the minds of the left of the US supporting monsters. We are well out of it. There are no good options for US involvement in this.

[jordan179]

Whether or not the Libyan rebels commit a "massacre" or not after taking power is not our problem. Our problem is the continued life in freedom of everyone involved in the Lockerbie attack, from Gaddafi on down. They need to be put in their proper places as either worm food or prisoners for the rest of their natural lives.

A "good option" is that Gaddafi dies, the other war criminals involved with Lockerbie are dead or in prison, and we PROUDLY admit to engineering this outcome, so that future would-be murderers of innocent Americans think twice about committing such vile deeds, and are deterred. A "bad option" involves said war criminals surviving as free men.

[polaris93]

Guess which option President Wussy will pick?

[jordan179]

Well yes .. I don't really expect Obama to act. He's spent his whole life seeing Gaddafi as a "progressive" force in international affairs.

[americanstd]

Never mind the fool in the White House pretending to be President who normalized relationships with Ghaddafi in 2006.

Plus, that interview from NR was from 2008. While I admire your not using someone else's blog as a cite, you could have used something a little more recent.

[jordan179]

Plus, that interview from NR was from 2008. While I admire your not using someone else's blog as a cite, you could have used something a little more recent.

Why, does a fact become an "un-fact" if three years pass?