U.S. Mission In Libya Exposes Divisions In Congress

[General Mung Beans]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/us/po ... &ref=world

News Analysis
U.S. Mission Exposes Divisions in Congress and Within G.O.P.
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER
Published: June 21, 2011

* Recommend
* Twitter
* Sign In to E-Mail
* Print
*
Reprints
* ShareClose
o Linkedin
o Digg
o MySpace
o Permalink
o

WASHINGTON — It is a familiar pattern in a government of checks and balances: members of Congress almost instinctively criticize the foreign adventures of a president from the opposite party.
Enlarge This Image
Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

Sen. John McCain, Republican of Arizona, talked to reporters at the Capitol after he and Sen. John Kerry introduced a Senate resolution authorizing action in Libya.
Related

*
British Leader Rebuts Commanders’ Concerns About a Long Libya Campaign (June 22, 2011)
*
A Rebel From Libya Is Greeted in Beijing (June 22, 2011)

Blogs
The Caucus

The latest on President Obama, the new Congress and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.

* FiveThirtyEight: Nate Silver's Political Calculus
* More Politics News

But the current imbroglio in Congress over the American involvement in Libya exposes a deep and unusual foreign policy schism within the Republican Party, driven in large part by a Tea Party-infused House whose members are more fiscally conservative, particularly constitutionalist, less internationalist and, in many cases, too young to have been politically influenced by the cold war that informed the more established members of the party.

The divisions came to the fore on Tuesday when Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, introduced a measure with Senator John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, to offer President Obama official Congressional authorization for the Libyan operation.

The legislation is an effort to blunt a series of House measures expected to seek to cut off financing for the operations in Libya as early as Thursday.

In introducing it, Mr. McCain chastised House Republicans for seeking to end the Libya mission. “Is this the time for Americans to tell all of these different audiences that our heart is not in this,” Mr. McCain said, “that we have neither the will nor the capability to see this mission through, that we will abandon our closest friends and allies on a whim? These are questions every member of Congress needs to think about long and hard, especially my Republican colleagues.”

House members of both parties and various political stripes seemed undaunted. Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, a Democrat of Ohio, will offer an amendment to a Pentagon spending bill to deny money for operations in Libya, as will Representative Justin Amash of Michigan, a Republican freshman.

“I’m more worried that we’re sending the signal to the world that we’ve abandoned our Constitution and our principles,” Mr. Amash said. “I think public opinion has shifted, opinion within the Republican Party has shifted, and their view is clearly in the minority right now.”

On Tuesday, Representative Joe Heck, a freshman Republican from Nevada and an Army reservist, introduced a bill that would cut off funds for the Libya mission within 30 days. The House is expected to vote on the McCain-Kerry bill this week, and is also likely to vote on a measure to end all involvement in Libya.

The antipathy toward the operations in Libya stems in part from President Obama’s refusal to seek authorization from Congress for the activities, as required by the 1973 War Powers Resolution.

But the rationale against operations in Libya extends to costs — expected to top $1 billion by the end of the fiscal year — and a belief among many lawmakers that American involvement in international conflicts should be limited to those where American interests are clearly defined. “We have to get away from occupation, nation-building-style warfare,” Representative Allen West, a Florida Republican and a Tea Party star, told ABC News.

This sentiment appears to extend to some Republican candidates for president, like Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, the chairwoman of the House Tea Party caucus, who has called the Libya campaign “President Obama’s war.”

The intransigence among House Republicans — scores of whom voted for a measure earlier this month, also offered by Mr. Kucinich, ordering a United States withdrawal from Libya — is enraging many conservatives in the Senate and beyond.

“Tea Party critics of America’s current military operations should look at how well served Congressional Republicans were in the 1990s by opposing intervention in the Balkans,” said Daniel Senor, a former Bush administration official and one of 37 conservatives to sign a letter to Congress on Monday urging members not to cut financing for the Libya operation.

There is a long history of both Democrats and Republicans adopting neo-isolationist views when their party is out of the White House. Democrats criticized President Ronald Reagan’s support for the Nicaraguan contras and El Salvador’s government, and fewer than a third of Democrats in Congress voted to authorize the Persian Gulf war in 1991 under President George Bush.

In the 1990s, Tom DeLay, then the House majority leader, called the Kosovo operation “Clinton’s war,” and most Senate Republicans voted against a bombing campaign in that war. Conservatives also charged that President Bill Clinton’s 1998 strikes in Iraq were meant to distract attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. “Sadly, this is pretty standard,” Mr. Senor said, “however irresponsible it may be.”

But the disagreements over Libya have made for some odd bedfellows, including antiwar lawmakers like Mr. Kucinich and right-of-center representatives, as well as strong Democratic supporters of the president alongside Republican hawks.

While not all lawmakers linked to the Tea Party are cut from the same cloth — indeed, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, one of the early Tea Party darlings, has much in common with Mr. McCain — the strong libertarian streak underlies some of the alliances. “This is a determined group of people who are not going along with business as usual,” Mr. Kucinich said. “They are principled and see the Constitution as being among the first principles.”

There also appears to be a generational divide. The freshman class “has come of age during two wars that were not going so well,” said Robert Kagan, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who also signed the letter to the House. “They did not live through the cold war, and they do not have the sort of Republican internationalist tendencies that were developed in the Reagan years that was kept going through two Bush presidencies.”

Mr. Amash, 31, noted that the Afghan war had gone on “almost a third of my life,” and agreed that newer members “have a greater sense that we need to worry more about our own affairs at home and stop trying to police the entire world.”

I certainly hope that the Republican Party doesn't break away from its internationalist course, which it has had ever since Robert Taft was defeated for the nomination by Eisenhower in 1952. On the other hand, an anti-globalization, anti-interventionist "Popular Front" of leftists, labour unions, Tea Partiers, libertarians, and paleocons (of the Pat Buchanan variety), would make a nice and lovely political group marriage IMO.

[Zaune]

We have to get away from occupation, nation-building-style warfare,” Representative Allen West, a Florida Republican and a Tea Party star, told ABC News.

That's one of the few sensible things I've heard a Tea Party candidate say, actually, but I'm not sure if rendering assistance to an existing movement that's attempting to unseat a thoroughly unpleasant regime with a history of acts of war against a fellow NATO member really counts as "nation building" in the way he presumably means.

[General Mung Beans]

We have to get away from occupation, nation-building-style warfare,” Representative Allen West, a Florida Republican and a Tea Party star, told ABC News.

That's one of the few sensible things I've heard a Tea Party candidate say, actually, but I'm not sure if rendering assistance to an existing movement that's attempting to unseat a thoroughly unpleasant regime with a history of acts of war against a fellow NATO member really counts as "nation building" in the way he presumably means.

I suppose he fears we'll end up sending occupation troops as happened in the Balkans.

[Spoonist]

On the other hand, an anti-globalization, anti-interventionist "Popular Front" of leftists, labour unions, Tea Partiers, libertarians, and paleocons (of the Pat Buchanan variety), would make a nice and lovely political group marriage IMO.

This just confuses me, how do you mean??? I don't get it at all, why would tea partiers join a popular front with leftists over libya?
Is my grasp on US politics so off key?

[General Mung Beans]

On the other hand, an anti-globalization, anti-interventionist "Popular Front" of leftists, labour unions, Tea Partiers, libertarians, and paleocons (of the Pat Buchanan variety), would make a nice and lovely political group marriage IMO.

This just confuses me, how do you mean??? I don't get it at all, why would tea partiers join a popular front with leftists over libya?
Is my grasp on US politics so off key?

I'm not saying its going to happen (indeed I'd bet against it) but I'm saying there is potential for such an alliance and there is already a temporary one here.

[Zaune]

I suppose he fears we'll end up sending occupation troops as happened in the Balkans.

That wouldn't have been the example I would have chosen, because the US military was deployed in the Balkans with the consent of at least some local leadership figures. But perhaps we're working from different definitions of "nation-building"; it's one of those phrases that seems to mean something different to everyone.

[Master of Ossus]

The mission in Libya is kind of interesting for another reason, as well.

Legally, Obama's justification for not complying with the War Powers Act seems like bullshit to me. The argument that US forces aren't involved in "hostilities" because their involvement is limited and only occasional (as opposed to continuous) strikes me as farcical.

However, the War Powers Act also strikes me as being an unconstitutional infringement on the President's ability to set foreign policy, and is an overreach by Congress into the types of political questions that the President is supposed to handle.

So, assuming that the courts eventually get involved, you have basically a power struggle with all three branches of government over what must be the least-involved ongoing conflict in which the US has actively involved itself in the last decade.

[Surlethe]

However, the War Powers Act also strikes me as being an unconstitutional infringement on the President's ability to set foreign policy, and is an overreach by Congress into the types of political questions that the President is supposed to handle.

So, assuming that the courts eventually get involved, you have basically a power struggle with all three branches of government over what must be the least-involved ongoing conflict in which the US has actively involved itself in the last decade.

The Libya fight is the only conflict that can introduce this to the courts because of political economy constraints.

Also: you can probably characterize Libya as the least-involved conflict the US has gotten itself into since, well, lobbing missiles at Libyan ships in the 1980s.

[Simon_Jester]

However, the War Powers Act also strikes me as being an unconstitutional infringement on the President's ability to set foreign policy, and is an overreach by Congress into the types of political questions that the President is supposed to handle.

Excuse me? Since when was the decision to fight a war something the President was supposed to handle?

[Lonestar]

Excuse me? Since when was the decision to fight a war something the President was supposed to handle?

Since Korea.

[Simon_Jester]

Excuse me? Since when was the decision to fight a war something the President was supposed to handle?

Since Korea.

So, are you going to reference the Constitution, or a Supreme Court decision?

Or did the president yell "dibs" after grabbing that power while no one was looking, which somehow means that now we just have to accept that as legitimate?

I mean... fuck, at least when Clinton or Bush wanted to bomb somebody they did go out and get Congressional authorization in some form. Obama's taken it to another level. Probably because he didn't see the need to get authorization over Libya- which is itself troublesome, because the president is not supposed to be a goddamn dictator.

[Lonestar]

So, are you going to reference the Constitution, or a Supreme Court decision?

Or did the president yell "dibs" after grabbing that power while no one was looking, which somehow means that now we just have to accept that as legitimate?

I mean... fuck, at least when Clinton or Bush wanted to bomb somebody they did go out and get Congressional authorization in some form. Obama's taken it to another level. Probably because he didn't see the need to get authorization over Libya- which is itself troublesome, because the president is not supposed to be a goddamn dictator.

I'm currently reading Bomb Power(albeit intermittantly), and I just got to the point where Acheson had the State Department come up with a list of 83 military deployments that occured without Congressional approval in order to send troops to Korea without getting Congressional approval. Then Truman and Acheson used the UN to do an end-run around Congress .


Anything sounding familiar yet?

[K. A. Pital]

War Powers Act was created after Vietnam to... you know, prevent stuff like Korea, Vietnam and Libya. So how is "since Korea" fucking relevant? The WPA came into being in 1973.

So since 1973, who of the US presidents blatantly ignored this act?

[Simon_Jester]

Lonestar, the history of US military deployments to war zones without Congressional authorization is long and shitty. I know this.

Thing is, I think it's a bad idea- sort of like it's a bad idea for policemen to beat confessions out of people, even though that used to happen all the time. It lends itself to abuses of power, to military operations that happen without the citizens having an opportunity for real oversight.

This is an ongoing problem, and while I'm not real thrilled to have Obama getting Republicans jumping on him about Libya in particular, I'm not two-faced enough to ignore the problem just because a guy from my party is in office.

[Lonestar]

Simon, Stas, when Shep was bitching about this in March the entire board quite a few posters were saying "no one cares about it except people like you".

I honestly don't give a fuck about the faux-outrage(well, not Stas, he has been consistant on his stance on Libya) that is now being showed in this thread. Shep predicted the whole thing months ago and he was mocked for it. If I had a "tiniest violin" emoticon on hand, I would be posting it right now.

[Master of Ossus]

However, the War Powers Act also strikes me as being an unconstitutional infringement on the President's ability to set foreign policy, and is an overreach by Congress into the types of political questions that the President is supposed to handle.

Excuse me? Since when was the decision to fight a war something the President was supposed to handle?

The President is Commander-in-Chief of the nation's armed forces. He is entitled to make decisions about the deployments and dispositions of the US military, its personnel, and its physical assets, among his other duties and powers. What possible authority can Congress claim in saying that this is fine, except when it lasts for more than n days and hostilities are involved? In addition, the President is entitled to direct foreign affairs, including recognizing and negotiating with foreign governments. Surely this is closely related to the present situation in Libya, in which there is a close question as to which government of Libya is legitimate and should be entitled to recognition.

This is really a political question. The doctrine was formalized in Baker v. Carr in 1962, although in practical terms the doctrine extended back until (at least) the Woodrow Wilson Administration, and its underpinnings go back at least to the aftermath of the Spanish American War, and likely even earlier.

War Powers Act was created after Vietnam to... you know, prevent stuff like Korea, Vietnam and Libya. So how is "since Korea" fucking relevant? The WPA came into being in 1973.

So since 1973, who of the US presidents blatantly ignored this act?

All of them, quite frankly. The constitutionality of the War Powers Act has been questioned since it was first conceptualized. And not unjustly so. It manifestly restrains the President's ability to command the nation's armed forces.

[Dominus Atheos]

However, the War Powers Act also strikes me as being an unconstitutional infringement on the President's ability to set foreign policy, and is an overreach by Congress into the types of political questions that the President is supposed to handle.

Excuse me? Since when was the decision to fight a war something the President was supposed to handle?

The President is Commander-in-Chief of the nation's armed forces.

You are a retard who has obviously never read the constitution.

The Congress shall have Power... To declare War

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

The president is only Commander-in-Chief during times of war, which must be declared by Congress.

[Lonestar]

Ehhh...President has initiated combat against other countries without having Congress declare war since, oh, let me think, Washington.

[K. A. Pital]

Whoa. I'll leave this to Dominus, he basically closed the question.

If Presidents act in an unconstitutional fashion, it doesn't mean Congress must tolerate it because it has done so in the past.

[Lonestar]

Dominus is out of his fucking mind

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

It's talking about when the Militia(National Guard) is Federalized, not only during war.

Unless Dominus thinks that an active duty military is not in "actual service of the United States", regardless as to whether or not there's an actual war going on.

[Master of Ossus]

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

The president is only Commander-in-Chief during times of war, which must be declared by Congress.

How exactly do you read, "when called into the actual Service of the United States" to mean "something which can only happen during times of war, which must be declared by Congress?"

The Army and Navy are standing bodies of military forces, which are (in effect) permanently in the actual Service of the United States. Congress has already raised and supported them. The clause that you cite as excluding the Army and Navy from the President's CiC functions (somehow) is meant only to separate (what is now) the National Guard from the President's everyday authority, and rather to vest their command in him only when they have been federalized by Congress under Article I, Section 8; Clause 14, which states: that Congress may "call[] forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." Emphasis added.

The parallel verb (call) between Article I Section 8 and Article II, Section 2 strongly suggests that the proper interpretation does not revolve around a declaration of War at all, and certainly does not apply to active duty military forces.

Whoa. I'll leave this to Dominus, he basically closed the question.

If Presidents act in an unconstitutional fashion, it doesn't mean Congress must tolerate it because it has done so in the past.

True, but in this case the shoe is actually on the other foot: merely because some Presidents have (sometimes) acquiesced to some of the requirements of the War Powers Resolution does not make it constitutional, and does not mean that a current President must tolerate it.

[K. A. Pital]

True, but in this case the shoe is actually on the other foot: merely because some Presidents have (sometimes) acquiesced to some of the requirements of the War Powers Resolution does not make it constitutional, and does not mean that a current President must tolerate it.

Nixon could have eaten the Congress alive if he had a leg to stand on. Nothing happened since 1973 that would give a legal challenge against the WPA any more ground.

[Surlethe]

Wiki says he vetoed it and the House and Senate overrode. Anyway, Nixon had other things on his mind in late 1973.

[K. A. Pital]

Wiki says he vetoed it and the House and Senate overrode. Anyway, Nixon had other things on his mind in late 1973.

Neither he nor any of his successors challenged the War Powers Act successfully in the courts. Which they could, if they had a legal ground to do so.

[Master of Ossus]

Wiki says he vetoed it and the House and Senate overrode. Anyway, Nixon had other things on his mind in late 1973.

Neither he nor any of his successors challenged the War Powers Act successfully in the courts. Which they could, if they had a legal ground to do so.

The point that I'm making is that this might finally be the time for a genuine court battle about the War Powers Resolution. If Congress (for what would really be the first time) insists on its application, then the President (for the first time) would likely have standing and cause for challenging its constitutionality. In the past, no one has really cared because no one has paid attention to it, but since Congress actually seems to be trying to put its foot down on the issue then this might be the time to declare it unconstitutional and resolve the whole mess of the relative powers of Congress vs. the President over the nation's armed forces.