Wait so we're going to start bombing Libya now?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Its way more than a no fly zone. Its bombing targets.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110317/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_us_mideast_clinton

Well a no fly zone placed over hostile territory intrinsically involves bombing their anti air capability. No fly zones are expressions of air dominance which has to be achieved first.

So you''re ok with bombing Libya. I'll remember that the next time you whine about kids getting killed in Afghanistan or Iraq.

When did that happen last time? I'm pretty sure my usual response is "this is the harsh reality of war, get the feth used to it and INSULTING GENERALIZATIONS ARE VIOLATIONS OF DAKKA RULES".

**Frazzled**

Oh look, Libya captures last rebel stronghold. What were you blathering about again Dogma? http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/03/17/Libya-takes-rebel-city-UN-mulls-action/UPI-25671300361839/

**agnosto**

biccat wrote:I'm not sure where you're getting the idea for this. As long as the United States is committing troops, there must be a declaration of war (60 days war powers exception notwithstanding). That's why Korea was a 'police action.'.

Guess what. The Unites States has already given tacit approval to involve armed forces in whatever manner the UN Security Council deems best. I recommend you read the charter. The U.S. Congress, as a signee of this document has already agreed to allow the UN to dictate certain actions.

Article 24
In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.

It didn't take a congressional approval stamp for the US to send troops into Bosnia; no declaration of war for that or for the no-fly zone in Iraq (before GW's war) or countless other "hotbeds" that US troops have visited without some "We're at WAR!" declaration....I don't believe we ever declared

Military engagements authorized by United Nations Security Council Resolutions and funded by Congress

In many instances, the United States has engaged in extended military engagements that were authorized by United Nations Security Council Resolutions and funded by appropriations from Congress.

Korean War

Multinational Force in Lebanon

Gulf War

Bosnian War
also known as UNPROFOR

Serbia

2001 war in Afghanistan

Second Liberian Civil War Peacekeeping

Haiti, also known as MINUSTAH

biccat wrote:
The U.S. isn't governed by the United Nations, they have no ability to circumvent U.S. law on the subject.

Again, read the charter. Yes, we are and yes, they do in that they won't ask things that break US law and police actions are allowed (see your own comment about Vietnam which was actually approved by congress without a formal declaration).

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:Oh look, Libya captures last rebel stronghold. What were you blathering about again Dogma? http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/03/17/Libya-takes-rebel-city-UN-mulls-action/UPI-25671300361839/

Ahh yes, the "the rebels will stop if we take down the monolith" thing. Glad that was proven true in afghanistan, Iraq, half of the countries in asia, and essentially every country in south america. Yep. The revolution stops because they took two towns.

**biccat**

agnosto wrote:
biccat wrote:I'm not sure where you're getting the idea for this. As long as the United States is committing troops, there must be a declaration of war (60 days war powers exception notwithstanding). That's why Korea was a 'police action.'.

Guess what. The Unites States has already given tacit approval to involve armed forces in whatever manner the UN Security Council deems best. I recommend you read the charter. The U.S. Congress, as a signee of this document has already agreed to allow the UN to dictate certain actions.

A treaty cannot subvert the Constitutional authority of the President or Congress. The UN charter is no more than a treaty.

Further, the treaty only authorizes the Security Council to declare war, it doesn't allow the Security Council to force it's member nations to declare war.

agnosto wrote:It didn't take a congressional approval stamp for the US to send troops into Bosnia; no declaration of war for that or for the no-fly zone in Iraq (before GW's war) or countless other "hotbeds" that US troops have visited without some "We're at WAR!" declaration....I don't believe we ever declared

You're right on Bosnia, but that was authorized under the War Powers act, which gives the president a 60 day window. The extra 2 weeks or so was not legal, and it's pretty well recognized as such.

The no-fly zone was arguably an extension of the authority of the first Gulf War, as it was enforcing a cease fire.

The list of US military actions you cite are actually pretty nefarious among Constitutional scholars. Fortunately (?) for Congress and the President, it appears that the courts aren't willing to accept cases challenging or defining the limits of the War Powers clause.

agnosto wrote:
biccat wrote:
The U.S. isn't governed by the United Nations, they have no ability to circumvent U.S. law on the subject.

Again, read the charter. Yes, we are and yes, they do in that they won't ask things that break US law and police actions are allowed (see your own comment about Vietnam which was actually approved by congress without a formal declaration).

Like I said before, a treaty cannot overcome the U.S. Constitution.

I had to check, but I mentioned Korea. Truman never went to Congress for a declaration of war.

Vietnam was authorized under the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Oh look, Libya captures last rebel stronghold. What were you blathering about again Dogma? http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/03/17/Libya-takes-rebel-city-UN-mulls-action/UPI-25671300361839/

Ahh yes, the "the rebels will stop if we take down the monolith" thing. Glad that was proven true in afghanistan, Iraq, half of the countries in asia, and essentially every country in south america. Yep. The revolution stops because they took two towns.

I thought we just had to kill enough of them and they would phase out

**ShumaGorath**

I thought we just had to kill enough of them and they would phase out

**Frazzled**

"They will not follow you if you are dead."
-Shadows to Sheridan.

**agnosto**

biccat wrote: too much stuff from both of us.

So I was wrong in a couple of places and you weren't entire correct in others. My point was/is that the War Powers Act hasn't been a hindrance to U.S. participation in UN operations and I don't see it ever becoming one because the public relations nightmare that would swiftly follow if we ever said we wouldn't participate.....we created the thing after all and if we stop supporting it, we'd be a bunch of hypocrits....not that that'll stop us. Congress has to invoke it to begin with and they can't even agree to pay for toilet paper right now.

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:"They will not follow you if you are dead."
-Shadows to Sheridan.

Dude got old ones to follow him when dead and the shadows protected their main and only home city with a thin dome of glass. Dudes got a lot of things wrong.

**Frazzled**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:"They will not follow you if you are dead."
-Shadows to Sheridan.

Dude got old ones to follow him when dead and the shadows protected their main and only home city with a thin dome of glass. Dudes got a lot of things wrong.

Thats what happens when you

with the Narn.

**yeenoghu**

My assumptions are based on what I have been following on the news since the Egyptian episode. It seemed like the perfect revolution according to the news, the people had a plan, leadership, and a loud but peaceful voice. It seems that their neighboring countries got the idea of trying the same thing in other Arab countries, but without a plan, without leadership, and with no coherent goal that I could make out in the first days of this thing other than the men interviewed on the news shouting proudly of their desire to die for the revolution if necessary. There is no particular person to bring to the table and negotiate, just "the rebels" whoever they may be. This makes any country that wants to look like it respects the rules and the sovreignty of states kind of shy about trying to mediate. Cap it off that el Generalissimo is obviously a narcisistic power paranoid nutjob as he showed with his proud proclaimation that his people love him and all want to die for him. Um, yeah... negotiations? hrm. The whole death wish concept is glorified in the minds of the rebels and the loyalists evidently and all I could make out was a poorly organized mob mentality versus a narcisistic powermonger. Do we even know what they proposed to do with the government once they won their revolution?

I believe this is why the U.S. and the international community in general, did not want to get involved. Following Egypt, we have seen attempts at rebellion all over the middle east, protesting monarchs, dictators, cubs fans, and other such despicable things but none of them had the overwhelming sense of purpose that Egypt's recent changes have. Egypt's revolution was widely televised because it was Good News! If anything the news networks seem to have taken a neutral to hushed approach with small coverage in general, no personal attachment, and what I interpret as a deliberate lack of any real depth. It's hard to support "the rebels" when we have no idea who they are, what they want to do (other than the obvious kill the king paris mob mentality), or what the people in Libya think of the whole thing. If it were the entire country in rebellion, then el Generalissimo would have been in the same position as what occured in Egypt, with no military wanting to fire on their own people either. Who wants to fire on their own people? Is the entire Libyan military a bunch of brainwashed thugs doing whatever the boss says? I find that hard to believe.

Top off the whole mess with a poorly timed earthquake, tsunami, and current nuclear meltdown fear suddenly distracting everyone to worry about something else, and it's a convenient "out" for world leaders put on the spot to intervene in such an awkward situation. I am afraid this revolution will be pretty much forgotten by everyone except the people of Libya, who will bear the resentment for the lack of support for the rest of their supposedly death-wish-loving lives.

This is all the observation of a guy who just sees what he sees on the news, so don't mock me too much, just saying what I see.

**helgrenze**

Bah.. I knew the Rebels were done for when France recognised them as the lawful Government in Libya.

**Eldanar**

biccat wrote:
agnosto wrote:
biccat wrote:Shouldn't the President be approaching Congress about a declaration of war against Libya?

Or are we moving back into the "it's OK when Democrats do it" stage of foreign policy intervention?

No declaration of war needed. If it happens (which it probably won't considering Russia and China are both on record against it and they have veto powers on the UN security council) it would be a UN action which does not require congressional approval.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea for this. As long as the United States is committing troops, there must be a declaration of war (60 days war powers exception notwithstanding). That's why Korea was a 'police action.'

That is not exactly factually correct. Here is a very brief article outlining the inherent problems with Congress' power to declare war, and what the President's role is, etc.: http://www.daveross.com/war.html

The President's authority to act unilaterally (without Congress) has been expanded over the past 200 years; and the courts pretty much refuse to touch it.

Wiki has a good article on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Clause

There is also debate as to whether the Commander-in-Chief powers conflict with Congress's War declaration power: http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/commander_in_chief_powers

And, although the War Powers Act is on the books, it has never been litigated to see if it stands up to Constitutional muster. It probably violates the aforementioned Commander-in-Chief powers. So basically we have a Constituitonal mess in this area, with arguments on both sides pretty much dictated by political affiliation and which party is currently in control of which branch of government.

**sexiest_hero**

Hell they didn't want our help till they were getting stomped "We can do this on our own". In the words of my father 'Pimps up, Freedom down!"

**Bakerofish**

...well damnit.

**biccat**

Eldanar wrote:
biccat wrote:I'm not sure where you're getting the idea for this. As long as the United States is committing troops, there must be a declaration of war (60 days war powers exception notwithstanding). That's why Korea was a 'police action.'

That is not exactly factually correct. Here is a very brief article outlining the inherent problems with Congress' power to declare war, and what the President's role is, etc.:
...
So basically we have a Constituitonal mess in this area, with arguments on both sides pretty much dictated by political affiliation and which party is currently in control of which branch of government.

It sure is factually correct, and there's no Constitutional mess. It's a well balanced political issue:

The President agrees that he'll seek Congressional approval for his actions before or within 60 days of deploying troops, and in exchange, Congress agrees not to impeach him for sending troops overseas without a declaration of war.

On the cases, I hate it when the Court punts on an issue by declaring so-and-so didn't have standing, and then making it a guessing game about who has standing to litigate a case. The worst offenders were the courts in the "birther" lawsuits. There's no reason why those cases couldn't have been decided for a variety of reasons. By refusing to grant standing to any of the plaintiffs, they encouraged more cases.

Just declare the War Powers clause a political question and be done with it.

**nels1031**

Kilkrazy wrote:McCain is right on this one.

We should have put forward air observers in with the rebel forces as soon as we had our nationals out of the country.

Head to your nearest recruitment center, maybe?

Let the sovereign foreign nation handle its own troubles. Or better yet, let the nations that share a border with it, or are a short trip across from the mediterranean from it, handle that business. It will be there refugee problem anyway. Also, isn't Libya a member of the African Union? Where are they and why are they so worthless/powerless?

And of course McCain wants a military intervention, so in the next presidential election he and his compatriots can call the Libya intervention "A war of Obamas choosing" and how it wasted x$ billion of the taxpayers dollars. And if he doesn't go to war/take military action, they have something to point to about him being weak in foreign policy.

Any billions of dollars spent putting gadaffi back in line is better spent with helping our allies and friends, the Japanese, in their time of desperate need. America(so by extension, the majority of NATO) has enough on its plate. Let Europe/Afric police their own neighborhoods.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
I'm osrry oh all knowuing guru, but what areas do the rebels still control? Last I saw G's forces had their last strong surrounded and had given them a surrender or be destroyed ultimatum.

You answered your own question. A force that's surrounded, and possesses a stronghold isn't defeated, and so any conflict involving them cannot be over. Regardless, what you heard is inaccurate, the rebels are not, collectively, surrounded.

Frazzled wrote:Oh look, Libya captures last rebel stronghold. What were you blathering about again Dogma? http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/03/17/Libya-takes-rebel-city-UN-mulls-action/UPI-25671300361839/

This is the first sentence of that article...

Libya's forces Thursday recaptured Misurata, the last major western rebel foothold, and bombed opposition capital Benghazi, Libyan officials said

It both indicates that what was captured was the last rebel foothold in the Western part of Libya, and that there are other areas under rebel control. More importantly, the part of Libya that the rebels control (The Eastern part, where Benghazi is the most important city.) contains the majority of Libya's proven oil reserves.

You plainly didn't even read that before posting it.

**Bakerofish**

dogma wrote:A force that's surrounded, and possesses a stronghold isn't defeated, and so any conflict involving them cannot be over. .

ya know...i remember i kept saying the exact same thing about Gadoofy

but i kept being shut down

huh.

**yeenoghu**

Now that the U.N. has passed their course of action, I predict Generalissimo will continue to defend his 'honor' or whatever crap goes on in his head, he just said the UN holds no power there or something to that effect. See how long that lasts. I am guessing the Libyan military is either brainwashed completely blind unaware of what that really means, or, hopefully one of the more sane people will assassinate his ego trip. Problem solved.

**KamikazeCanuck**

UN passes no-fly-zone just after the nick of time. How very UN.

**Asherian Command**

Russia and China have stopped trading with Libya...

**ShumaGorath**

KamikazeCanuck wrote:UN passes no-fly-zone just after the nick of time. How very UN.

Why do you blame the UN when the UN isn't an entity that makes decisions? Blame china, the EU, or Russia who held up the process. Or maybe the US that didn't push for it enough. The UN doesn't do anything by itself, it's a building.

**agnosto**

I honestly didn't see ratification of the no-fly zone coming; I thought it was a long shot at best.

Too little too late?

**Kilkrazy**

I'm quite surprised that people aren't keen to get revenge for the Lockerbie bombing.

**ShumaGorath**

Kilkrazy wrote:I'm quite surprised that people aren't keen to get revenge for the Lockerbie bombing.

People are made about that until it involves getting out of their chairs. Then they're over it.

**dogma**

agnosto wrote:I honestly didn't see ratification of the no-fly zone coming; I thought it was a long shot at best.

China and Russia lacked sufficient interest to veto. It was ideological opposition, not opposition from material need.

agnosto wrote:
Too little too late?

It depends on how intent the Libyan military is when it comes to resisting the no-fly zone. If they just drive around under the UN air cover, and make no attempt to resist the action, then they might do alright; after all the instigation of a bombing campaign, while possible, isn't a necessary component of a no-fly zone.

**Orlanth**

The way I see it is this.

Gaddafi won. Sure he is going to have big internal security problems fro a long time, but he won. There was a time when he might not have won but that time passed.

France tried to help them with official recognition, but got nowhere fast because they didnt do anything. Which may have been wiser. The UK tried also, spreading rumours about Daffy leaving the country which forced him to show his hand, and also tried to establish contact with rebels and got pissed on for it.

meanwhile Aun-O 'Bama did nothing, he dithered and dithered and was the wet lettuce his presidency has marked him to be. Howeverb now twith the rebels gone and his popularity at full ebb (the real issue to him) he wants to appear tough and send in the bombers.

Too little too late, I doubt it will make Obama appear tough now, that time has passed and it certainly wont help the Libyans, with the rebels contained it has turned from a war to a policing/internal security action. Daffy needs secret policemen backed up with APC's now, not bombers and 6th Fleet does little to stop those.

The only way to deal with Daffy now would be an invasion, and as a sizable portion of the military have nailed their colours to Daffy they will fight one way or another, so any invasion would quickly not appear as any form of liberating force.

Bomb Libya, make them all enemies. The new resolution makes no sense and is political posturing for a US president who hasd proven time and again to be a complete incompetent in terms of foreign policy. Sadly it will not be the first time a US president has started a war for his own personal gain, and it ont be the first time we have followed him.

Now the window is shut I really hope Cameron has the smarts not to try and climb through it, the Libyan people had their chance to get our help and declined, its on their own heads now.

**sexiest_hero**

Remember That thread I made about Obama, showing signs of weakness for not pushing for it sooner. I knew way before hand the no fly zone was going to happen. I just wanted it to happen you know when it could of mattered. It's not like Obama was gonna lose any votes from people who just oppose him anyways. It's to late now the country is split east and west, and the no fly zone that may have ended this will just turn it into a bloody civil war. Freedoms dead there broham, go close Gitmo or something.

**Eldanar**

biccat wrote:
Eldanar wrote:
biccat wrote:I'm not sure where you're getting the idea for this. As long as the United States is committing troops, there must be a declaration of war (60 days war powers exception notwithstanding). That's why Korea was a 'police action.'

That is not exactly factually correct. Here is a very brief article outlining the inherent problems with Congress' power to declare war, and what the President's role is, etc.:
...
So basically we have a Constituitonal mess in this area, with arguments on both sides pretty much dictated by political affiliation and which party is currently in control of which branch of government.

It sure is factually correct, and there's no Constitutional mess. It's a well balanced political issue:

The President agrees that he'll seek Congressional approval for his actions before or within 60 days of deploying troops, and in exchange, Congress agrees not to impeach him for sending troops overseas without a declaration of war.

On the cases, I hate it when the Court punts on an issue by declaring so-and-so didn't have standing, and then making it a guessing game about who has standing to litigate a case. The worst offenders were the courts in the "birther" lawsuits. There's no reason why those cases couldn't have been decided for a variety of reasons. By refusing to grant standing to any of the plaintiffs, they encouraged more cases.

Just declare the War Powers clause a political question and be done with it.

Not exactly.

The War Powers Act does not require a declaration of war; rather, it only requires authorization by Congress for the Executive to have troops overseas for more than 60 days. No specific Declaration of War is required. So I stand by my earlier premise that what you stated was not exactly factually correct (although I kind of understood what you meant anyhow...)

But the War Powers Act is also pretty much unenforceable. Not much of a law if no one is going to actually follow it, now is it?

By your reckoning Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Lebanon, Kosovo, The First Gulf War, the Iraq invasion and ongoing occupation, Afghanistan, The Cold War and The War on Terror are not "wars," or they are not "legal," or some other such nonsense, because there was no formal Declaration of War promulgated by Congress.

The Constitution says the Congress shall have the power to Declare War... But this phrase does not qualify this as an exclusive power. Nor is a formula in the Constitution for how this Declaration is supposed to look, what the procedure is for how it comes about, nor even is the terminology defined. I understand your position, and it is one that I find difficult to get away from as well. But experience and education have disabused me that a lot of the things I was taught in high school are simply not correct.

Presidents both before and after the War Powers Act have sent troops into conflicts 125 seperate times without prior Congressional approval. Also, every President who has sent troops anywhere since 1973, Republican and Democrat alike, has asserted that they have the Constitutional authority to commit troops without Congressional approval, under Article I, either prior to or after 60 days of an action, regardless of the War Powers Act.

As for the Court, if the SCOTUS did not adhere to a strict interpretation of standing, then it would be doing nothing but resonding to one idiotic claim after another, whether its birthers, income tax challengers, people who do not want to fund the military, etc. All of the lower courts have declared the War Powers Act a political question, and the SCOTUS has denied cert. every time. So basically, that means it is a political question, and not a legal one. As for birthers, private citizens do not have the right to challenge specific actions of the U.S. government, without the governments prior consent; so no standing. I also find it ironic that the conservatives, who go on and on about state's rights, refuse to acknowledge that Hawaii's "certificate of live birth" is somehow not legitimate because it is not a "birth certificate;" and they want some sort of national standard applied ex post facto so that they can nullify a man who was born there from serving as president. Even though the Federal Elections Commision, which is duly authorized and empowered by Congress as the certifying body, has certified him as a "natural born citizen." It is really nothing but closet racism IMHO.