Admonition of the Protestors of the Intervention in Libya, part 2

By Zach Foster

Continued from Part 1: The Libyan Civil War and the No Fly Zone ARE NOT Iraq and Afghanistan

Part 2: The CORRECT reasons to criticize the intervention

Still, few manage to realize how fundamentally different the intervention in the Libyan Civil War is from the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  There is a difference between enforcing a no-fly zone and sending troops into the country.  The last time the U.S. intervened in a civil war by sending in ground troops was the Somali Civil War (Operation Restore Hope) in late 1992 through early 1993, which was a disaster (see the film or read the book Black Hawk Down).  The last time the U.S. intervened against a dictator killing his own people was the establishment of a no fly zone over Kurdistan and Southern Iraq (nowhere near Baghdad, the national capital) in the 1990s.  Did the no fly zone result in a war to liberate the Kurds and the Shiite Muslims?  No.  Will the no fly zone over Libya result in an American war?  Only if the President commits ground troops.

It is almost hilarious to se the irony of the protesting against UN Resolution 1973.  Ultra-leftists were shouting solidarity with the oppressed people of the Middle East and wondering if the U.S. was going to take any action to help them, especially the people of Libya, while they were systematically being slaughtered by Qadafi.  Now the no fly zone and additional measures to protect civilians have resulted in Qadafi’s Loyalists retreating from Benghazi, the last rebel stronghold (amidst cheers from the Libyan people), and the liberals are angry about a “third war of imperialist conquest for oil.”  Apologies for bursting their bubble, but Muammar Qadafi has permitted American oil corporations to drill in Libya for years.  There is no economic gain from a war of conquest in Libya.

Ultraconservatives were angry about the President not doing a thing while Libya deteriorated.  Now he leads the international effort to enforce the no fly zone, and now they are angry at him and returning to the Obama-is-Muslim rhetoric.  It seems as if the President just can’t win.  Perhaps both political camps should simply write up a list of set criteria for what the President should do at any and all times in the case of any civil war anywhere.

Let it be known, however, that many Libyans (who are affiliated with neither Al Qaeda nor the Muslim Brotherhood) have been blogging and tweeting the situation whenever not being covered by Al Jazeera.  One tweet which caught my attention (and was re-tweeted countless times) said the following:

People who complain about the coalition are either pro-Gaddafi or not from Libya. He is slaughtering us and you moan about the UN resolution.

That statement mirrors views represented in hundreds of thousands of tweets and blog posts.  It is clear that the Libyan people—the anti-Qadafi majority—desperately want the no fly zone and protection from Qadafi Loyalist troops.

While UN Resolution 1973 is morally just, people are not wrong to protest it.  They are wrong because they have been protesting it for all the wrong reasons.  The primary correct reason to protest the U.S. involvement in UN Resolution 1973 is that IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  The President never consulted Congress before diverting valuable Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force resources from Operation Enduring Freedom (everyone remembers the Afghanistan War, right?).  In Article 1 Section 8, the Constitution says:

The Congress shall have Power….

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;…

While it is true that the President is Constitutionally designated to be Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and the Militia, he must be careful not to overstep his boundaries.  He must not forget that his accountability is not to the United Nations—it is to the United States Congress.  It’s not very difficult to call an emergency session of Congress.

While a good number of Democrats and many Republicans in Congress have actually been using the proper Constitutional argument to criticize this intervention, it is necessary to point out the partisan hypocrisy overshadowing it; most Republicans who are Constitutionally wary of President Obama on Libya in 2011 seemingly were not Constitutionally wary of President Bush on Iraq in 2003, just like many Constitutionally wary Democrats today forgot about the Constitution when President Clinton sent peacekeeping troops to Bosnia and Kosovo in 1995.  While there is seldom anything wrong or unjust about helping people abroad and protecting them from being slaughtered by tyrants, Americans need to be awakened to the fact that the Constitution ws written and ratified for a reason, and it wasn’t for mere convenience.