War with Libya? Where's the Declaration?

Last Saturday, the 19^th, US and coalition forces attacked several military targets in Libya in order to weaken the forces of Dictator Muammar Qaddafi's government. What was first a discussion of an UN-imposed “no-fly zone” over the country has become a multi-phase military operation. The Pentagon reported that over 100 missiles were fired from offshore US and British ships at Libyan air bases on Saturday. Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes explained at a press conference on the 21st explained that these actions are an attempt “to degrade the regime's capability to resist the no-fly zone” that US officials are looking to implement following the UN resolution authorizing intervention in Libya. All this for a resolution that does not even authorize regime change, so what’s the point?

John Stewart of The Daily Show offers a hilarious, yet
depressing take on the "not-war."

This Monday, 10 days after the start of military action, President Barack Obama decided to address the country simply to“update the American people” on our military action in Libya. The premise of this speech worries me slightly. Instead of consulting the people through the their elected representatives and gaining certification of war with the Libyan regime, President Obama instead went to the UN for a resolution in order to enforce a no-fly zone. In the event that the President wishes to circumvent Congress, the United Nations exists as the Empire’s rubberstamp to carry out whatever military operations it wishes. Adamantly declaring that no American boots will be on the ground in Libya must help him sleep a little better at night, but just because there will be no troops on the ground does not exempt this conflict from being a considered a “war.” Muammar Qaddafi might be a crazy dictator, but he is still the leader of a sovereign nation, and acts of force against a nation’s government and military cannot be construed to be anything less than acts of war. Do not be fooled, when the President wishes to deploy American military might abroad, the Constitution requires him to obtain a declaration of war from Congress, assuring that the people (or their elected representatives) have authorized the government to deploy their friends and family in the military to fight and die in order to protect America’s interests. Sadly, Congress was never consulted or held a vote on the matter. They merely sat by, as we did, while the President deployed our military forces abroad and told us about them later.

What’s disturbing about President Obama’s recent actions in Libya is that, back in 2007, then-Senator Obama stated: “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.” Although this blatant hypocrisy should surprise us, it probably won’t. Obama’s actions in the Middle Eastare just as illegal as his predecessor, George W. Bush. Simply calling it “humanitarian” means little these days. Officials pulling the strings in the White House and State Department don’t give a damn about humanitarian crises. Look at Rwanda and Sudan; these were arguably more offensive and more egregious killings of innocent civilians around the world than the events in Libya, yet no action was taken. The rhetoric for intervention will always be consistent, but the direction of intervention has been grossly inconsistent.

The question is not whether Muammar Qaddafi has acted in a tyrannical manner toward his own citizens; it is very clear to the international community that he is a ruthless dictator, a delusional, power-hungry ruler akin to North Korea's Kim Jong Il. The question instead should be: what are the potential costs and outcomes of American intervention? What are our goals? Insinuating that we have an ideological and humanitarian stake in every rebellion, civil war or internal conflict around the world may be an easy excuse to exercise our nation's incredible military might abroad, but should the conversation stop there?

Humanitarian need ought not to be the singular standard by which we weigh the costs of intervention. Instead we should focus on what is an appropriate form of intervention and what cost will it bear on the American people and our standing in the global community. The mentality of “shoot first, ask questions later” that has permeated the American Empire is insulting to the People and their elected representatives in Congress. If the President feels strongly enough that attacking Libyan military forces is in the interest of America’s defense, he should have no problem standing in front of Congress and submitting a formal declaration of war. Alas, he did not. It seems cowardly to deny the people a seat at the table to decide whether their loved ones will be sent overseas to another unstable, oil-rich Middle Eastern nation. It is even more offensive to the national character that we would be “updated” on the attacks for the first time over a week after they occurred!