Presidential Imperialism in Making War

Here are two simple statements. First, the military of the United States exists to defend the nation. Other than combat operations in Afghanistan following 9-11, a lot of people seem to have lost sight of that basic fact over the past generation. Second, Congress has the Constitutional role to declare war. In my 50 years of life, I have watched the nation become completely divided twice, over wars that were launched in Vietnam and Iraq without a declaration of war, neither of which were defensive wars. It is long past time for Congress to assert its Constitutional role in regard to military operations, against an imperialist executive branch that has assumed to itself the right to make war, with or without the people’s consent through their elected representatives.

The Arab Spring in Libya quickly evolved from largely peaceful protests to armed rebellion, and there is neither a vital national security interest nor a moral imperative for the United States to become involved in what is essentially a civil war there. No thinking person in Libya, America, or anywhere else should be the least bit surprised that Gaddafi chose to shoot protestors when the freedom-from-tyrants movement arrived in Libya. As soon as the shooting began, protestors had the choice to go home or take up arms and try to overthrow the government. They chose to launch an ill-prepared rebellion, to which the government responded with even greater force, creating the prospect of widespread civilian casualties. Although this is extremely sad and difficult to watch, it did not create a moral imperative for the United States to intervene militarily in what was now a civil war.

Consider our own American revolution, officially launched by the Declaration of Independence. When the British came to put down the rebellion, did France then have a moral imperative to enter the war on the side of the colonies? Neither France nor any other nation had a moral imperative to rescue American insurgents from British wrath, although France chose to help because they regarded it in their national interest to do so. In any armed rebellion, those who take up arms must make life and death calculations about the possibility of victory. Although they may wish for external help in their cause, they have no right to expect or demand something that was never promised to them. Libyan rebels and others may say that America and the international community has blood on their hands if they fail to join the fight, but playing the guilt card does not make it so. It is Gaddafi that has blood on his hands, and those who lead armed rebellion also take on a grave responsibility in doing so.

President Obama has chosen to intervene in this civil war for humanitarian purposes, but did he have the right as the Commander in Chief to commit American troops to battle without first receiving Congressional approval? He did not, for the following reasons. First, this was not a defensive response to an attack against the United States. If the United States is attacked militarily, the Commander in Chief might have to act within minutes, and we would expect him to do so. Not the case here. Second, there is no vital national interest at stake in this Libyan civil war. If a vital interest of the United States was in immediate peril, the Commander in Chief might have to act first, then consult with Congress. Again, this was not the case here.

Since the United States was not attacked, and since no vital interest of the United States was in imminent danger, that leaves us with a situation that can best be described as “an optional military action based on humanitarian principles and political ideals.” Now here is the point. If there was time for international debate and an international resolution regarding military intervention in Libya, then there was certainly time for national debate and a national resolution regarding military intervention in Libya. This was an optional war, and the President should have sought and received a Congressional vote of approval prior to sending American troops into combat because that vote would have expressed the will and judgment of the American people. But he did not, because it was international consent, not the consent of the American people that the President prizes.

Here is what should have happened. When it became clear that this civil war could lead to widespread and indiscriminate civilian casualties, the President should have put forward his proposal for Congress to debate and vote on while he was working through international channels. If Congress had voted “Yes”, then the President could have gone forward into an international coalition with the confidence of the American people behind him. However, I’m not at all convinced that the American people, through their elected representatives, would have chosen to enter this war. And if the Congress had voted “No”, then the President would have had no business joining an international military coalition. It’s that simple. Seek American approval first, world approval second.

As it is, the President did not make a proposal for Congressional approval. Furthermore, he has come belatedly to the American people to make his case, nine days after military operations began. The American people are being treated as an afterthought, and that is outrageous. The President should have gone to Congress first, and spoken to the nation first. He is President of the United States, not President of the United Nations! The President is so concerned about the impression of American imperialism abroad that he has done things backward, and in so doing has acted in an imperial fashion at home. In fact, it remains to be seen if the President will seek Congressional approval at all.

The war in Libya has turned out all right for the time being, and I sincerely hope that Gaddafi is removed and a freedom-loving representative government arises in his place, but that is far from certain. Gaddafi is nothing if not a survivor, and even if he is killed, we have very little idea what kind of rebels we are supporting and what kind of regime would take his place. Public opinion in the United States is already divided, and not a single American has been killed yet. If even 100 American troops are killed, I believe the American people will turn soundly against the operation overnight, in large part because they never consented to it in the first place. What does that tell us about the “compelling” nature of this mission? It is long past time for Congressional leaders to demand that the Executive branch be accountable through them to the American people prior to engaging in combat operations of this type. That Congressional leaders are not demanding this tells us that either they do not believe this to be their Constitutional duty or else they are not willing to defend it against an Imperialistic Presidency.

RichardCash.net | Blog | About Richard | Intro to Clear Notes | Fast and Pray | Sign Up to Fast and Pray