Obama’s Speech Neglected Critical Issues with Libyan War

Last Monday night, President Obama addressed the nation on the situation in Libya. He attempted to dispel some fears and answer criticisms that have been directed against him. Unfortunately, he accomplished neither.

One of those criticisms leveled at the president is that he failed to consult Congress before committing the US to military conflict. Under Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution, the power to declare war is specifically granted to the Legislative branch. This was to ensure that the peoples’ representatives are the ones to make such a commitment.

President Obama utterly ignored this provision of the Constitution when he deployed US military forces against Libya. The White House has responded by invoking the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

The War Powers Resolution grants the executive the power to commit military forces to a conflict for 60 days at which time a declaration of war or authorization of force must be granted by Congress. The President is allowed to exercise this power only when the US is under attack or there is an imminent threat of one. Reiterating the objections of many Americans: what threat did Gaddafi pose?

To save face, Obama mentioned several times in his speech that Libya presented an “imminent” threat to the US. He failed to define what that threat was, making only vague references to refugees that might go to neighboring Tunisia or Egypt and destabilize the region.

In a weekend interview, Defense Secretary Gates admitted that Libya “… was not a vital national interest to the United States.” Gates also put forward the argument that international approval and humanitarian reasons were enough cause to intervene.

In 2007, then candidate Obama said “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.” Regrettably, it would seem that he has forgotten his own advice.

President Obama and Secretary Gates fail to realize that they are not answerable to the UN or any other country. Their job is to follow the Constitution and serve the American people and their interests. Firing hundreds of millions of dollars of missiles and bombs into Libya without Congressional approval is unacceptable.

This is not the first time the president has violated the Constitution in favor of the UN either. In 2009, Obama became the first US president to accept the chairmanship of the UN Security Council. Traditionally, the US Ambassador to the UN would chair the council. Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution forbids a member of the government from accepting “…Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

A second issue the President did not address in his speech Monday was the fact that we do not even know who the rebels are or what kind of government will be installed once Gaddafi is gone. The Telegraph recently reported that Al Qaeda fighters who previously were battling against Coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting on the frontlines against Gaddafi.

A top US NATO commander, Admiral James Stavridis, testified to the Senate that “we have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential Al Qaeda, Hezbollah.”

In 2007, a West Point study was done on the backgrounds of fighters crossing the Syrian border into Iraq during the 2006-2007 timeframe, under the auspices of the international terrorist organization Al Qaeda. The authors report that Libya is the number one country for radical jihadist recruitment per capita. The primary recruitment grounds are in the east of the country, specifically the cities of Darnah and Benghazi. These are two of the focal points of the rebellion against Gaddafi.

It would be foolish to think that all the rebels or their leaders accept this form of radical Islam, but do we know what portion of them do? How do we know that the new government will not be worse than the current secular dictatorship?

These are but two criticisms of Obama that went unaddressed in any real sense during his speech. There are other logical inconsistencies in the President’s actions including the fact that Obama attacked Gaddafi but not other rulers who are killing their people in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, or Oman. One might point to the hundreds of thousands that have died and the millions displaced as a result of US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as hypocrisy as well.

Also, the fact the United States is bankrupt has to be addressed as well. The President likes to pay lip service to reducing spending, but a deficit of $1.65 trillion is unsustainable. Borrowing from China and others to fund new wars is reckless to say the least.

Certainly, Gaddafi is a heartless killer and deserves to go, but getting involved in a civil war in a country that poses little or no threat to this nation is ludicrous to say the least.