The War in Libya
The Wall Street Journal writes editorially that Republicans should not join antiwar Democrats in opposition to what Barack Obama is doing in Libya (Leading Libya From Behind.) WSJ says it is “happy to support Mr. Obama on Libya, but it would help if the President seemed to believe in his own policy and power.” They add that if antiwar GOP opportunists won’t follow the Constitution they at least should be concerned about the political risks involved. When Gadhafi falls Obama will be able to claim a victory for NATO and freedom, despite the opposition of Republicans.
The WSJ leaves the impression this is not so much about the Constitution as it is about getting rid of Gadafi and making sure Obama does not get full credit.
At the Constitutional Convention in 1787 the original idea was to say Congress had the power to make war, but this was changed to “declare war” because it was understood that the Commander in Chief must have the right to respond when America is attacked, as was the case at Pearl Harbor. However, Franklin Roosevelt soon after asked Congress to declare war. Not all of America’s wars have been supported by an official declaration, but in nearly every case it has been accepted that Congress must authorize the president to conduct war. Lyndon Johnson bombed Vietnam after the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed by Congress.
Obama argues that no specific authorization is needed in the case of Libya, because it does not involve actual “hostilities” on America’s part. The US is merely supporting the Europeans in this war. Obama calls this “leading from behind.” WSJ says Obama’s rationale has been ridiculed by Congress and rightly so.
WSJ writes that Obama, early on, should have tried to get Congress to cooperate on Libya. But if Congress now wants to stop the war it should use its power of the purse. It is astounding, says WSJ, “to hear some conservatives who profess fealty to the Constitution nonetheless claim that the war powers question should be settled in court.” The War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional because “it seeks to intrude on war management powers that are inherently the duty of a single Commander in Chief.”
The WSJ’s arguments do not seem convincing to me. It is the president’s duty to manage the war, but not to start it. Only Congress can “make war.” If Congress decided not to pay for the war it would certainly interfere with the Commander in Chief’s ability to conduct the war. Congress clearly has that power.
I do not believe that Republicans, by demanding that Obama explain to Congress why we are in Libya and request formal authorization to proceed with the war, are endorsing the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution. All they are asking is for the president and Congress to obey the Constitution. The question of whether Obama might gain political credit if he succeeds in Libya only muddies the water.
2 Responses to “The War in Libya”
Leave a Reply
Would you have wrote this same article about Bush intitiating the Iraq war? Keep in mind that the Constiution says that Congress must DECLARE war, not merely issue an authorization, as with Iraq.
Or are you just another bullshit Republican opportunist?