Bombing Gadhafi’s forces in cities would likely cause civilian casualties, precisely what the allies are charged with preventing, said Stephen Biddle, a military analyst with the Council on Foreign Relations.
“If they start firing artillery from (within) cities, they’re hard to reach with airstrikes,” Biddle said. “If your mandate is to avoid civilian casualties, that leaves us thwarted.”
Are you paying attention, Pageamntmaster? Isn’t this what I have been saying the last two weeks? The Libyans aren’t stupid. They will figure out the limits of the air operation and act within them. [blockquote] Under current circumstances it would be sensible for Gadhafi’s forces to dig into residential areas, mount attacks and wait out the coalition, Biddle said. A stalemate between his troops and rebels could be the result, he said.[/blockquote] A real possibility is then stalemate. How many times have I said it? Not an end to the war, but the beginning of an endless war. [blockquote] “A distinct possibility is that neither side will be able to take ground and have hard time pushing anybody else out,” Biddle said.[/blockquote] And then what? Well, what do we care? The UN only authorized us to create this mess under the guise of protecting civilians with fighter-bombers. It never said anything about protecting civilians with soldiers. I guess all humanitarian crises are equal, but some are more equal than others.
carl
[blockquote]Defence insiders say as many as 12 of the weapons have been fired from the hunter–killer submarine Triumph in the past four days.
If this is correct, the [British] Navy will have used up to 20 per cent of its 64 Tomahawks in the opening salvos of the war, leading to fears that it is “burning through” its armoury.[/blockquote]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8400079/Libya-Navy-running-short-of-Tomahawk-missiles.html
12 fired out of 64 total! You can’t do anything with that!
Setting aside the illegality of US participation (which is paramount to me), the execution is farcical. I share Carl’s concerns. The thing has not been adequately thought out, planned for or supported. This coalition will fall apart because the participants never bought in to what they are being asked to do (assuming that it is agreed on what the task is in the first place). You can’t do modern war on the cheap.
Fearless Leader takes the helm. [blockquote] Meanwhile, Obama repeated his intent that authority for the air operation be turned over to someone other than the USA. [/blockquote] “Hey, could I get a little help here? England? France? I’ve got some water boiling on the stove.” Congradulations, Mr President. You’re caught.
Jimmy Carter is redeemed.
carl
Then there is this by Andrew C. McCarthy:
[blockquote]Barring an emergency that requires bringing force to bear in our defense, We the People should not be taken to war unless we the people — through our representatives — agree that we must go to war. No doubt that is why Sen. Barack Obama, as a presidential candidate and former Harvard Law Review editor flaunting his claimed expertise in constitutional law, proclaimed that [b]“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.”[/b][/blockquote]
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/262771/political-dispute-not-legal-one-andrew-c-mccarthy?page=2
But that was then and this is now I guess.
Let’s be fair here: presidents of both stripes have used the assumption that the President has 90 days to gain Congress’ approval to initiate strategies which involve our troops. I’m not a big fan of The Chosen One, but we need to remember history before lambasting him as unique in this issue.
Let’s be fair. The War Powers act does not allow the President to initiate an aggressive war against a nation at peace with the US and which has made no aggressive moves against the US.
Let’s look at the text:
[blockquote]SHORT TITLE
SECTION 1.
This joint resolution may be cited as the “War Powers Resolution”.
PURPOSE AND POLICY
SEC. 2. (a)
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
SEC. 2. (b)
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.[/blockquote]
http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal22/warpow.htm
The President has authorized on his own an aggressive war to influence the outcome of a civil war. There was no declaration of war; there was no specific statutory authorization; there was no national emergency created by attack on the US, its territories or our armed forces.
Now Presidents disagree with the War Powers act, yet their argument requires the necessity of arguing the power of the Congress to declare war is superfluous. That there is no check on the power of the President to wage aggressive war. The remedy lies in the Congress and that remedy is impeachment and removal from office.
The War Powers Act is moribund. Presidents acknowledge it at their convenience. Congress cannot enforce it. The Legislative Veto at the heart of the Act has been gutted by the Supreme Court. Otherwise the Court will not touch it. The law as it stands is useless in this fight. President Obama did not actual unlawfully by commiting American forces to Libya. He acted within his constitutional authority as presidents understand it. The conflict is not a matter of law, but a matter of differing Constitutional interpretation between two different branches of government both of which are capable of offering legitimate interpretations of the Constitution. The WPA tried to enforce Congress’ understanding. The attempt failed. Miserably.
The the authors of the Constitution expected each branch of Government to defend its particular perogatives. The boundary between Command and declaring war is not specified. Where the actual boundary lies must be worked out between Congress and the Presidency. If Congress doesn’t have the courage to defend its perogatives, then the president will exercise his right to command unimpeded. Br Micheal is right. If Congress will not impeach, it has given up the only effective tool in its arsenal to constrain the President in this manner.
carl
“President Obama did not act unlawfully …”
I blame Microsoft.
carl
What a mess. I am so sick of this country’s inability to mind its own D—-d business.
#1 Hi Carl
In spite of all the confusion all over the place, I see no confusion in what the military are doing and what they have achieved. In five days, a substantial part of the UNSC Resolution 1973 has been achieved:
[1] the safe establishment of the no fly zone after the removal of threads to it by the degradation of the air defenses of Libya and its command and communications infrastructure and the destruction or disabling of its aircraft; and
[2] the saving of the civilian population of Benghazi from imminent destruction and hopefully enough assistance to the other besieged cities to enable them to survive the massive onslaught which is still being waged against them.
I think the militaries of the coalition members who stepped in first, because of the immediate peril to civilians, while the rest of the forces are being collected has been amazing and beyond anything anyone could have asked for.
In the conduct of this operation and its success I see none of the confusion which afflicts the politicians in both Washington and Europe.
There is no doubt in England with our own financial situation and stretched military, we needed this like a hole in the head, but we have been completely united in believing that this is the right thing to do to offer what we have and all we can do to save these poor people from destruction.
They are grateful to the US, French and British forces and all the others who are supporting them, as am I. Thanks be to God for their delivery so far and prayers for those still under threat.
I also don’t think that Gaddaffi can just ‘sit this out’. The regime is preoccupied with the economic situation and the collapse of the infrastructure as the foreign workers who kept it going have left. The financial sanctions have bitten deep and the Gaddaffi regime knows that it retains loyalty only from those who are beholden to them for the hand outs and bribes they received. As all this collapses and the financial sanctions and blockade bite, then in the medum term this regime may well totter as more desert it.
If you listen to what is being talked about in the Tripoli briefings it is the economic situation which seems to be be preoccupying them, and they know they have to keep the good times going, for their own survival.
So rather quicker than the military situation or predictions suggest this situation of Gaddaffi ‘sitting it out’ might just resolve itself.