YES: Congress — the people’s representatives — must have a say in the process.
By Mark Weisbrot
“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.”
That was Sen. Barack Obama on Dec. 20, 2007, opposing the idea that President George W. Bush could bomb Iran without congressional approval.
But now he is doing exactly what he opposed when he was not yet representing the U.S. foreign policy establishment — in other words, an empire.
The people who founded this country were not interested in ruling the whole world, and that is why they wrote a constitution that gave the people’s representatives in Congress the authority to declare war.
The typical American, contrary to popular mythology, lives a lot closer to those principles than does the foreign policy elite. To support going to war anywhere, he or she generally has been lied to for years and persuaded that there is a serious threat to our own security.
Iraq is just the most blatant and recent example, where 70 percent of the people were convinced that Saddam Hussein was involved in the massacres of Sept. 11, 2001. And still most Americans were against the invasion of Iraq before it happened.
For the foreign policy elite, despite their differences over Iraq, war is just an extension of politics by other means. Their kids don’t have to fight in them or come home dead or disabled, and they don’t bear the economic costs.
This difference in attitude is why this administration went to war in Libya without consulting the Congress, despite working the U.N. Security Council and the Arab League.
There are serious reasons for an elected official to think twice about supporting U.S. involvement in yet another war in a far-away Muslim country that has little or nothing to do with our national security.
We do not know how long this war is going to last; it could go on for years. History shows that it is a lot easier to get involved in a war than to get out; there are still 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan after nine years, despite a recent Washington Post poll showing nearly two-thirds of Americans think that the war is not worth fighting.
In just a few days of bombing Libya we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars and this will surely escalate into the billions.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., spoke for millions of Americans when he said that this military action was a “fiscal issue,” and that some Americans were going to die because we were laying off firefighters and police. But somehow there are always some extra billions for war.
Americans are understandably skeptical that our involvement in yet another war in an oil state is motivated by humanitarian concerns.
Our leaders have shown little concern for the people of Yemen as dozens of peaceful protesters have been massacred by a U.S.-backed government.
Also, if Washington and its allies were really just trying to prevent bloodshed in Libya, there would be a serious effort to find a negotiated solution to the conflict — which is lacking.
Foreign intervention in a civil war often makes things worse by inflaming ethnic conflicts. More than a million Iraqis are dead as a result of the U.S. invasion there, which among other things promoted a bloody civil war.
The invasion of Afghanistan also greatly worsened the civil war there.
A number of members of Congress have demanded that President Obama seek congressional approval for this war.
Let’s hope that more have the courage to join them. Otherwise, the next president may decide that they have the right to decide to bomb Iran.
Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
NO: The Constitution gives the president the power as commander in chief.
By James Jay Carafano
Not since World War II has any nation declared war on another — with the possible exception of a 1967 declaration against Israel by five Arab countries. While fighting remains as common as ever, the practice of issuing formal declarations has gone out of style.
Formal declarations of war fell out of fashion during the 17th century, too. Our Founding Fathers thought that was wrong, and so they stuck a requirement in the Constitution saying Congress must approve a declaration before the nation went to war. But that provision was never intended as an absolute check on executive power. Not all military operations constitute wars. Nor is a war declaration the only legitimate way Congress can signal support for military operations.
As “The Heritage Guide to the Constitution” points out, there have been only five declared wars in our nation’s history, but numerous other hostilities “have been specifically authorized by Congress through instruments other than formal declarations.” The framers of the Constitution, however, did think there was something important about “formal” declarations. Democracies, they felt, were fundamentally different from other states and ought to be as open and transparent as possible about what they were doing.
War declarations are part of that transparency regimen. When you declare war, you specify your grievances and how you expect to resolve them. That is a good practice, and it is too bad democracies have gotten away from it.
Yet, clearly, President Obama has the authority to order the operations in Libya. The Constitution divides the powers of initiating military actions between the executive and Congress to foster deliberation and consultation to the extent possible under the circumstances. But the president is still the commander in chief. He alone bears the legal and moral responsibility for ordering U.S. armed forces into action.
What rankles most about the president’s decision on Libya is the lack of open deliberation and discussion. Certainly he had time to consult Congress and the American people about military options, yet he spent much more time consulting with the U.N. Security Council.
It is discomforting to see an American president seemingly defer to the United Nations rather than lead the country. Moreover, the U.N. resolution he got does not help much. The United Nations is not sovereign, nor do we need its permission to act in the world. Furthermore, the resolution is vague and open-ended. And President Obama so far has done little to provide clarity about our objectives and our commitment.
Helping “protect civilians” is an aspiration, not a mission. Promising to put no boots on the ground just tells us what tactics are off the table. Stating the U.S. will not pursue “regime change” declares what the mission is not, not what it is.
These are serious concerns. The lack of congressional consultation and the vagueness of the mission deny Americans what the Constitution intended: a clear statement of purpose about U.S. military action. It is vital to avoid “mission creep” and perpetual fighting.
All that said, a declaration of war against Libya would be a bad idea, because going to war in Libya is a bad idea. That is not to say that the United States should do nothing, but Libya does not merit significant, protracted operations by U.S. forces. The U.S. has legitimate interests in the outcome of the Libyan turmoil: seeing Gadhafi brought to justice, and not seeing a new terrorist haven established, a humanitarian crisis, a wave of refugees overwhelming our European allies or civil war spreading to nearby nations. But these concerns fall short of being vital national interests and can be addressed through measures short of war.
James Jay Carafano is director of the Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation.