On Saturday, President Obama while visiting Brazil launched a United Nations war without obtaining Congressional approval. We all must remember how the left crucified President George W. Bush over a nine-month debate concerning war with Iraq. This debate included multiple UN Resolutions and a Multi-National Force composed of dozens of nations. Many refer to this time of debate as a "rush to war." Yesterday however, President Obama approved the launch of Tomahawk missiles effectively engaging us in a Libyan civil war. This decision came with no debate in Congress and one UN Resolution that was only voted on 48 hours before. Political Analyst Larry Sabato today tweeted his opinion on causes given for our military action stating, "I've never heard such a muddle of half-explanations and weak reassurances on Sunday talk shows--& this was from #Libya adventure BACKERS." Dick Morris stated, "The time to define mission goals is before bombs fall not after. What is our goal in Libya? Obama has no idea!" Andrew Sullivan at "The Atlantic" said, This adm is willing to throw out its entire strategy and principles..in defense of rebels about whom we know almost nothing." House Speaker John Boehner released his first statement on the U.S. attacks on Libya expressing his approval for the actions taken, but demands, "the Administration must do a better job of briefing members of Congress and communicating to the American people about our mission in Libya and how it will be achieved." Below is Speaker Boehner's statement:
"The United States has a moral obligation to stand with those who seek freedom from oppression and self-government for their people. It's unacceptable and outrageous for Qadhafi to attack his own people, and the violence must stop.
The President is the commander-in-chief, but the Administration has a responsibility to define for the American people, the Congress, and our troops what the mission in Libya is, better explain what America's role is in achieving that mission, and make clear how it will be accomplished. Before any further military commitments are made, the Administration must do a better job of briefing members of Congress and communicating to the American people about our mission in Libya and how it will be achieved."
To read more about Boehner's statement go to washingtonexaminer.com
We are now beginning to see doubts arise over the outcome of the conflict in which we are now engaged. On "Face the Nation" today, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen acknowledged that there was a possibility that the conflict could end in a stalemate and that the length of the military action could not be foreseen.
MR. GREGORY: And I, and I want to get more into that, but I want to just say, 25 years ago, Richard Haass, Chernobyl was the meltdown in that Time magazine cover. But again, confluence of crisis. For any president, this is a lot to manage at one time.
MR. RICHARD HAASS: It's a lot to manage, but also it raises the importance of an administration having its priorities. You've got a lot to manage with Japan, you've got a lot to manage with what's going on in the broader Middle East, you've got a lot to manage what's going on in the United States in terms of our economy and our deficit. So one of the real questions is why are we doing as much are we are doing in Libya? So many of your guests are talking about too little too late. Let me give you another idea, David, too much too late. In times of crisis and multiple crisis, administrations have to figure out their priorities. They got to do some triage. The--to me, the big problem is not what we haven't done, it is what we are doing.
MR. GREGORY: General Hayden, what are your concerns and your thoughts right now as you're watching this unfold?
GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN (Retired): Well, I, I think what the folks that I used to serve with in the armed forces in the intelligence community are, are wondering is, "How do I know when I'm done? What, what, what constitutes accomplishing this mission?" I mean, we can say this is for humanitarian purposes, we can say it's a no-fly zone; but, in reality, what we have done is intervene in a Libyan civil war. We now own a moral responsibility for the outcome.
MR. GREGORY: Richard, you, you just have broad concerns as you, as you penned a piece in the Wall Street Journal earlier this month, "The US should keep out of Libya."
MR. HAASS: Again, our interests aren't vital. We're talking about 2 percent of the world's oil. Yes, there's a humanitarian situation on, but at the risk of seeming a bit cold, it is not a humanitarian crisis on the scale say of Rwanda. We don't have nearly 100--a million people, innocent men, women and children whose lives are threatened. This is something much more modest. This is a civil war. In civil wars, people get killed, unfortunately. But we shouldn't kid ourselves. This is not a humanitarian intervention, this is U.S. political, military intervention in a civil conflict which, by the way, history suggests, often prolongs the civil conflict. And, as several people have already pointed out, what is step B? Whether Gadhafi complies with what we want or whether he resists successfully, either way, we are going to be stuck with the aftermath of essentially having to take ownership of Libya with others. And just because others are willing to share in something, as so many people point out, doesn't make it a better policy. It just means the costs are going to be distributed. But the policy itself is seriously flawed.
MR. GREGORY: Well, and General Hayden, you said that this notion of a no-fly zone is--how do you describe it? Should not be the focus.
GEN. HAYDEN: Right, right. No. I mean, look, it wasn't the Libyan air force that was causing problems. It was the preponderance of ground power that Gadhafi could bring to bear. And so stopping them flying doesn't solve anything.
MR. GREGORY: No. It's so we can bomb them from their airspace, right? If they start to move on the ground.
GEN. HAYDEN: We have--we have to do. But I found it striking that your reporter from Tobruk said that the reaction of the opposition to this was they're putting their helmets back on, buttoning their chin straps...
MR. GREGORY: Yeah.
GEN. HAYDEN: ...and going back on the offensive. Now, what kind of dilemma policywise does that present us with if now it's the opposition on the move taking on Gadhafi's forces?
MR. GREGORY: All right. Now I want to get a quick break in here. We're going to come back and talk about this and some of the bigger questions about what comes next. More with our roundtable as the situation in Libya unfolds right after this.
MR. GREGORY: We're back.
Richard Haass, let me pick up with you. The issue that was on the table is, what if now the opposition feels emboldened, and they're now on the move, and civil war starts again? What position does that put us in?
MR. HAASS: Well, that's exactly what's going to happen.
Advertise | AdChoices
MR. GREGORY: Yeah.
MR. HAASS: And we don't know what the political agenda of these people are. The tribal makeup of Libya is so complex. I hope that the people making the decisions in the administration have a real feel for what is going on and what are going to be the political agendas of the people we may be now empowering. But the one thing we know is that this thing now has a new lease on life. And what might have burned out is not going to, if you will, be rekindled. This is now going to be a prolonged civil war. And at some point we're going to have to decide new forms of intervention. It's not going to stop here, David. It's not going to end with simply the United States shooting off some Tomahawks or doing some aircraft runs. This is going to require, ultimately, the one thing the administration says it probably doesn't want to do, boots on the ground. Someone is going to have to provide that kind of involvement in Libya because this is a country that is going to be fundamentally divided with places people are killing each other and places the government is not in control of.
MR. GREGORY: But, Jim, is that fair? I mean, General Hayden, I had a member of the Bush administration say to me candidly, look, can you imagine if Sarkozy was in power in 2002 as we were starting the Iraq War. You really do have the French and the British leading on this. As the senator has pointed out, the Arab League swinging behind this here. It'd be difficult, Gadhafi may try, but to make this a unilateral U.S. effort here.
GEN. HAYDEN: Oh, no. and I, I don't think anyone's saying that we should. But let's look at why people are doing these things. I think the Arab League move was quite remarkable, frankly. But with our European friends, I mean, this is about cold, hard facts. This is about mass migration. They, they have a direct interest here that they have to protect. It's no wonder that they had a greater sense of urgency about this than we did.
MR. GREGORY: The big ideas and are we getting them right?
MR. HAASS: Mike Mullen says the big idea, the biggest single national security threat facing the United States is our economy, it's our fiscal situation. This will not make it better. Instead, we are ignoring a previous secretary of state, John Quincy Adams, someone you haven't had on the show in awhile. We are going abroad in search of monsters to destroy. There's any number of monsters. But is this, right now, something that's strategically necessary and vital for the United States, given all that's happening in places like Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, around the world, with all that we need to repair at home? The answer, I would think, is not. And that's the big idea the administration's missing. It's not enough to simply want to do good around the world wherever we see bad. We've got to ask ourselves, where can we do good, at what cost, against what else we might have to do? Read the full transcript at msnbc.msn.com.
With No Debate and No Objective, Obama Enters a War
At once presumptuous and flippant, President Obama used a Saturday audio recording from Brazil to inform Americans he had authorized a third war -- a war in which America's role is unclear and the stated objectives are muddled.
Setting aside the wisdom of the intervention, Obama's entry into Libya's civil war is troubling on at least five counts. First is the legal and constitutional question. Second is the manner of Obama's announcement. Read more at washingtonexaminer.com.
Lawmakers Concerned About U.S. Role in Libya
Key congressional leaders on Sunday said President Obama must do a better job of defining the U.S. role in leading the coalition imposing a “no-fly zone” on Libya and how far the military is prepared to go to drive Libyan leader Col. Moammar Gadhafi from power.
In a sign of the delicate political position Mr. Obama faces on the Libyan clash, some skeptical lawmakers insisted the president had exceeded his authority and must seek approval for the military action from Congress. Read more at washingtontimes.com.