Libya Continues

As the City Life show wound down this morning Host George Anthes threw the War in Libya into the mix.♠

Because I haven't switched the channel we now have Rep Dennis Kucinich on "Democracy Now" saying that the President has no authority to take the US to war in Libya; that he has exceeded his authority and action needs to be taken.  He has assumed power that no President has assumed, not even President Bush.  Being Commander-in-Chief is not authority to take the nation to war.  If Congress is to mean anything at all we have a responsibility to call this Administration to account.  The Congressman dismisses the idea that just because it happened in the past mean that Congress can't now assert its powers under Article 1 of the Constitution.  He specifically states that the President has NOT met the requirements of the War Powers Act (or Resolution).  The current administration is on the same line as John Yoo.

So, IMHO, there is the question of if the Presidency continues to drift toward a place where, at least in the area of foreign affairs, the role of the Congress is reduced to ex post facto ratification of the actions of the President.  This is a long term issue and one that can only be resolved by the US Congress, collectively, asserting its righs and responsibilities under the Constitution.

But, back to City Life, the question was, why Libya and not some other place, like North Korea (I would throw in Cote d'Ivoire).  The answer is, we do what we can, where we can, when we can and ignore what we can't fixed.  Libya is a prime example.  There are air bases within range of Libya and the ships of several members of the coalition are always somewhere shore.  Nations which might provide support are on the borders of Libya.  Perhaps most important, Libya does not have a nuclear capability that could threaten others, as is the case with North Korea.♥

There is no doubt that there was, and is, a threat to the People of Libya and the fact that Colonel Qaddafi's military is to a large degree Mercs from other African nations makes threats of massacres more credible.  This is not Egypt, where the Army is from the People and thus might well side with the People.  In Libya the military is there for the money and will kill for that same money.

So, to answer George Anthes, we are consistent.  We do what we can do without imposing a high cost on ourselves.

The other thing I would note is that sending in Air and Naval Forces, due to their configurations and their ways of fighting, does not grab the attention of the American People.  Ships launch TLAMs from off shore and the risk to the crewmen is minimal.  Pilots and Weapons Systems Officers are graduates of college and a lengthy training program so are probably six years away from high school graduation.  In contrast, soldiers and Marines, with boots on the ground, are quite possibly only a year or two out of high school and thus their death or serious injury has a greater impact on local communities.  Further, the loss of a soldier or Marine, either wounded or killed, is likely not isolated, as the platoon, company or battalion consists of 50 or 200 or 800 people engaged in the fight.  Conversely, a "Flight of Four" aircraft puts at risk at most eight people.

The real danger in this contrast is that we will think that an "Air and Maritime" action is not a real war and we will engage in it without understanding the consequences.  As we have seen with Colonel Qaddafi in the past, he can hit back in indirect ways, such as by blowing up airliners (he has two to his credit).

There is no free lunch.  Every action has some consequences.  We should be working to make those good consequences; for us and for others.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Down to about seven minutes, so too late, IMHO, to call in.
♥  Thank you, President George W Bush.