E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSUS military officials tell NBC News that it's likely command of the loosely described "no-fly zone" operation over Libya should be turned over to a NATO commander by tomorrow, NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski reports. While the command will change, the US will continue to take the lead in launching airstrikes against Khadafy's military armor and ground forces. A Senior US military official tells NBC News "some of the coalition members remain a little nervous about attacking ground forces" so US warplanes will continue that mission for the foreseeable future.
Secretary of State Clinton announced that in addition to Qatar, the United Arab Emirates will also be sending planes. “We welcome this important step,” Clinton said, noting the importance of buy-in from the Arab world. “This operation has saved many lives but the danger is far from over,” she continued. The Arab League’s initial support provided the West cover to intervene. But after Khaddafy claims of civilians being killed, the Arab League was vocalizing criticism of the action for which it advocated. The U.N. and allies were apparently able to convince the Arab League, however, not to make any more comments it deemed unhelpful, because the league has been very quiet since. Clinton will head to London Tuesday to meet with allies. NATO still has to decide if it wants an expanded takeover role beyond the no-fly zone, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reported on Nightly News last night. And, as of last night, Mitchell reports, NATO was NOT decided on enforcing the broader elements of “all means necessary” in the U.N. resolution.
And tensions in the region are far from being allayed. The administration is now condemning the violent crackdown by the Syrian government on protesters there. “An assault on the central mosque there early Wednesday, and subsequent attacks by security forces, left an unknown number of deaths, some of which appeared to be documented in bloody videos posted on YouTube,” the New York Times reports. In a statement released last night, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, in part, “The United States strongly condemns the Syrian government’s brutal repression of demonstrations, in particular the violence and killings of civilians at the hands of security forces. … Those responsible for the violence must be held accountable. … We call on the Syrian government to exercise restraint and respect the rights of its people and call on all citizens to exercise their rights peacefully.” “Must be held accountable?” Questions have been raised about the U.S.’s standard on when to intervene on foreign policy. Why Libya and not Yemen or Bahrain, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) has asked. Well, what about Syria?
Here’s the full The United States’ statement on Syria: “The United States strongly condemns the Syrian government’s brutal repression of demonstrations, in particular the violence and killings of civilians at the hands of security forces. We reject the use of violence under any circumstances. We are also deeply troubled by the arbitrary arrests of human rights activists and others. Those responsible for the violence must be held accountable. The United States stands for a set of universal rights, including the freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, and believes that governments must be responsive to the legitimate aspirations of their people. We call on the Syrian government to exercise restraint and respect the rights of its people and call on all citizens to exercise their rights peacefully.”
Confusion over the United States’ goal in Libya is exacerbated by “the fact that the administration has shifted over the past weeks -- from resisting military action, to leading the first assault, to positioning itself to hand over control to its partners. That seems to have left almost no one satisfied,” the Washington Post writes. “Those who were urging Obama from the start to charge in -- neoconservatives on the right; humanitarian interventionists on the left -- say he dithered too long. Those who warned against yet another incursion into the Muslim world, particularly in a country where U.S. interests are limited, say he has been reckless. He has been accused of being too deferential to other governments, and not enough so to Congress.”
Washington Post: “The international coalition confronting Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi agreed Thursday to put NATO in charge of enforcing a no-fly zone but was still working on a deal to relieve U.S. forces of command of all military operations in the country.”
The allies involved in the offensive against Col. Khaddafy’s forces remain divided over the ultimate goal and exit strategy of the military campaign, the New York Times writes. President Obama has all but called for Khaddafy’s removal, while France also recognizes the Libyan rebels as the country’s legitimate representatives, but other allies have backed away from going so far in their stated positions. “The questions swirling around the operation’s command mirrored the larger strategic divisions over how exactly the coalition will bring it to an end -- or even what the end might look like, and whether it might even conceivably include a Libya with Colonel Qaddafi remaining in some capacity.”
President Obama will not give a long, explanatory speech to the nation because he does not want to equate this conflict with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Politico writes.
The White House doesn’t want to call the Libya offensive a war, the Wall Street Journal points out, instead referring to it as “time-limited, scope-limited military action, in concert with our international partners, with the objective of protecting civilian life in Libya from Moammar Gadhafi and his forces,” as White House Press Secretary Jay Carney put it yesterday.
Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer says that the confusion is due to President Obama’s unwillingness to lead, borne out of his lack of American exceptionalism. “This confusion is purely the result of Obama’s decision to get America into the war and then immediately relinquish American command. Never modest about himself, Obama is supremely modest about his country. America should be merely “one of the partners among many,” he said Monday. No primus inter pares for him. Even the Clinton administration spoke of America as the indispensable nation. And it remains so. Yet at a time when the world is hungry for America to lead -- no one has anything near our capabilities, experience and resources -- America is led by a man determined that it should not.”
Leave a Comment:
It's a philosophical engagement - Sphere of Influence. Look it up Republicans. President Obama has formed an alliance that would have the founding fathers scratching their heads. If they could make a statement at this moment, they would likely say, "Damn that guy is really good."
President Obama is putting on a presidential clinic.
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
"No man is happy without a delusion of some kind. Delusions are as necessary to our happiness as realities."
Christian Nevell Bovee
Then why is the right always so damn angry and deluded at the same time?
louis - more likely they would have said "who is this idiot?" What part of "foreign entanglements" didn't he understand??
american.
Not likely.
The irony of the whole Tea Party movement is, the founding fathers would have said:
Who are these idiots? And what part of history do they not understand? Oh, all of it.
repulicant - still trying the misdirection avenue, eh?? the topic at hand was obama and the founding fathers. Please take your meds so you can follow along.
Forget all the fancy-schmancy talk, LouisJ-
It's so much more simple than all that. Obama did it, it HAS to be wrong.
Don't take my word for it- just listen to all the 'liberal' media noise going on over at, say, Fox!
drive by - actually it is much easier to recall all the comments made by many libs on the role of bush2 and then compare the similarities between actions taken by obama and bush2. I do so like how political turn-a-bout works.
Unfortunately for the detractors of today it will likely be our grandchildren or theirs to decide on whose actions changed the world for the better.
american.
There are very few similarities between Lybia and Iraq.
Unless, of course, you live entirely in a right wing projection based reality.
repulicants - not much on reading comprehension are you??
President Obama’s claim of having the constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief under Public Law 93-148, the War Powers Act of 1973, passed by the 93rd Congress, in House Resolution 542, that he has the power to order U.S. Military forces to attack another nation is in direct contradiction Section 2c. of that Act is wrong.
Section 2c: “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, it territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”
Clearly, the justification for the ordered attack on Libya by President Obama fails to meet the three conditions of Section 2c of the War Powers Act. The War Powers act itself is unconstitutional as it permit’s the President to make an end run around the severely limited powers enumerated to holders of that office as detailed in the following description of the original intent of the framers who penned, debated, passed, then sent to the several states legislatures for ratification, the Constitution of the United States.
Article 1: Section 8: Clause 11 of the US Constitution states: Congress shall have Power To: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Raoul Berger former Charles Warren Senior Fellow in American Legal History at Harvard Law School in his benchmark book titled Executive Privilege: A Constitutional Myth referring to the Founding Fathers limits on the President as Commander-in-Chief penned the following specific and common sense description and definition of the term. Under Article 2: Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States, 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;
§
President Obama, like George Bush before him and multiple previous President's has violated the Constitution of the United States by ordered US forces to attack Libya. One only has to read the Federalist Papers penned by Hamilton, Madison and Jay to discover the meaning of the power of the President as Commander in Chief.
§ .
As Commander-in-Chief, said Hamilton, the President's authority would be "much inferior" to that of the British King; "it would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral...while that of the British King extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies---all which, by the Constitution ... would appertain to the legislature." (1)
The severely limited role of the President was a studied response to what Madison called an axiom, an "axiom that the executive is the department of power most distinguished by its propensity to war:(2) Those who are to conduct a war, " said Madison, "cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges whether a war ought to be commenced, continued or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from he purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws." (3) All appeals to the power of the President as Commander-in-Chief must therefore proceed from the incontrovertible fact that the Framers designed the role merely for command of the army as "first General." That a "first General may not withhold from the legislature information about the conduct of a war is illustrated by parliamentary history, the very notion offends against the democratic abomination of government by a "man on horseback."
The House of Representatives must immediately move and draw up articles of impeachment of President Obama, vote on them, and if passed, send them to the US Senate for trial. It is past time that Congress grow a pair, stand up and due it duty under Article 1: Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States. Not only is the future of our Republic at stake but also the nations economy.
(1). Federalist No 69 at 448
(2). Letters of Helvidius, 6 Madison, Writings 138, 174. In 1798 Madison wrote to Jefferson: "The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments. demonstrates, that the Ex. is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature"; ibid 312. Consequently, he rejected doctrines which "will deposit the peace of the Country in that Department which the Constitution distrusts as most ready without cause to renounce it"; ibid 22. Ibid. 148
(3). This is the logic of Jefferson's statement that "We have already given in example on effectual check to the Dog of war by transferring the power of letting him loose from the Executive to the Legislative body, from those who are to spend to those who are to pay", 15 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 397.
(a) Written report; time of submission; circumstances necessitating submission; information reported
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced—
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation;
the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sup_01_50_10_33.html
======================================================
The reality is, this is sort of a grey area because the constitution is vague, and the courts have yet to resolve the question.
Which is why, Reagan was able to go into Grenada, and Clinton was able to join the UN in the Balkins.
Yes, Obama could have argued longer about the legality of his plan to save lives in Libya and tried to get a declaration of war from a bitterly divided congress that cant get anything done, meanwhile Republicans would have continued to claim that he was doing nothing, and several thousands of civilians would have died at the hands of a tyrant.
The legality of what he did isn't crystal clear, but clearly it was the right thing to do.
Besides can anybody think of any scenario where Obama's actions would have saved lives in Libya AND not have Republicans complaining?
Mr. Jones.
Politically, this was an amusing issue to watch develop.
Since there were not clear ideological lines, the partisans confusion got the best of them, as they are so used to being told what to think.
The left, except for the extreme left, was cautious, partly from not wanting to be labeled hypocrites and partly because they don't really like the idea of any war.
The right was just looking for political advantage. You saw in Gingrich's flip, as well as all of the "We should have gone in sooner" B.S.
It really was an opportunity to see how much more important politics is then actual sound policy to most of these people.
I hope everyone took notice.
to bad you only got it half right repulicants, but then again you already knew that based on how you spun your post.
Interesting on how you equate gingriches "flip" and other "we should have gone in sooner". Care to enlighten us further on your sources of both, as I thought newt wasn't privy to state department briefings. Seems that you will have quite a struggle to prove your points.
How about this?
March 7 In response to Greta Van Sustren question of what he would have done in Libya
Gingrich: "Exercise a no-fly zone this evening, communicate to the Libyan military that Gadhafi was gone and that the sooner they switch sides, the more like they were to survive, provided help to the rebels to replace him. I mean, the idea that we're confused about a man who has been an anti-American dictator since 1969 just tells you how inept this administration is. They were very quick to jump on Mubarak, who was their ally for 30 years, and they were confused about getting rid of Gadhafi. This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with. …
March 23 In response to a question from Matt Lauer about whether the military should remove Gadhafi.
Gingrich: "I think that now -- let me draw a distinction. I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Gadhafi. I think there are a lot of allies in the region that we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces, bombing Arab and that country."
Thanks Mr. Jones.
american.
Are you asleep? Or do you only absorb what is fed to you?
Spun? Gingrich openly contridicted himself.
Other then that, I only posted part of the War Powers Act to provide more context.
so, you're implying that your following comment was in the war powers act...
how interesting... lame, but interesting! lmao!
" He has been accused of being too deferential to other governments, and not enough so to Congress"
J'accuse! J'accuse!
Meanwhile, 60% of American people approved the no-fly zone AND do not want to send ground troops in, which is what the President has done; however, Obama is losing the "message war" with critics in the press and Congress? What doesn't add up? Oh, that President Obam's policy is in line with the public's wishes, but not with his political and media critics.
(Wikipedia: J'accuse! has become a common generic expression of outrage and accusation against someone powerful.)
Hmm, I think you might be part of an elite group or something. Why do you have to sound so smart? You must be a liberal...part of the Liberal Media, huh? It's laughable how these people who claim to be so patriotic are causing the demise of the great country: the dumbing down of middle Americans, the constant threat of civil war, the selling out America to China and other countries, and etc. No wonder many of them think kids are being indoctrinated when they sound smart.
Good for our president MR. OBAMA,
he did what was right not for political stance not to pound his chest and say we have to got to war and justify it for glory like Bush did.
he on the other hand discussed it with our allies and they all came up with a plan and then they executed it, unfortunately the Republicans did NOTHING, NOTHING so now that they are not involved and we all know the out-come will be a good one for the USA and president OBAMA as it always seems to play out on what he as a president has chosen to do or not do. on this one the repub's are boiling over that they will not be able to take any credit for this BOTTOM LINE.
Hello America, Barrack Obama is just using Libya to avoid the real crisis facing America, and now to the News March 25, 2011 4:30 am, check out Fezzy Bears prediction on facebook, FezzyBear@facebook.com, I warned Munich about the dangers of allowing wannabe Aisian and Muslim scientist to get a hold of German Science and Technology and now we can clearly see the results, Oppenheimer and Einstien are to Blame """The Unit 3 reactor is the only one at the plant to use plutonium, which is more toxic than the uranium used in the other five reactors. The government called for an investigation into why such high levels of radiation had suddenly appeared."" now you recall last week after Barrack Obama had consulted with his other Nobel Lauriets from Hawvoord they concluded quote "there is absolutely no risk to Americans, let me repeat myself there is absolutely no risk to America!" now here 1 week later we hear of the Breach in Plutonium240, U235 and Urainium 238 and many of you ask Fezzy how serious is this breach? about as serious as the Breach of confidence that the American People place in Barrack Obama and his Whitehouse cabinet, anyway, this Breach is serious, very serious, very very serious, Apocolyptic Serious, on a scale of 1 to 10 with, Chernobyl at 7, Fezzy Bear rates this Japanese reactor as a 13, why so serious Fezzy you may ask? well for one reason Chernobyl was land locked, what happens in Chernobyl stays in Chernobyl, but as for this Sukonomy Plant it is on the Sea Front of the Pacific Ocean and is currently leaking thousands of gallons of high level plutonium into the ocean and atmosphere, now you might say but Fezzy its such a small cloud? well bad things come in small packages, it would only take a few plutonium atoms about the amount that would fit on the tip of a straight pin or needle to kill you, only a few atoms injested by dust or otherwise will kill you, thats it. well as for Sea water and the Ocean what lives in the Pacific Ocean Fezzy? now thats a good question, Salmon, Tuina Fish, Whales, Dolphins, Crabs, Shrimp, Lobsters, and Starfish, the good thing to come from all this leaked radiation is many forms of green Algae actually love Plutonium, so we can expect a large green carpet to spread out from the reactor. and I have to admit I would have to guess at how long it takes Ocean currents to bring the green carpet to Alaskan and California shores, I would suppose about a year, just think of all those glowing Surfers, ahhh what a world. sincerely Fezzy Bear