War Powers Act

The War Powers Act of 1973, passed in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, puts limits on the ability of the President to send American troops into combat areas without Congressional approval.

Under the act, the President can only send combat troops into battle or into areas where ''imminent'' hostilities are likely, for 60 days without either a declaration of war by Congress or a specific Congressional mandate.

The President can extend the time the troops are in the combat area for 30 extra days, without Congressional approval, for a total of 90 days.

The act, however, does not specify what Congress can do if the President refuses to comply with the act. Congress could presumably suspend all funds for such troops and override a Presidential veto.-- N.Y. Times

Libya is the latest example of a President ignoring the War Powers Act. Turning command of Odyssey Dawn over to NATO seemed to imply US forces would be pulling out. Now National Security Advisor Tom Donilon has stated that US will continue military operations so long as Qaddafi continues attacking his own people. The statement does not even try to pretend the US is in a supporting role, it makes very clear the US is leading the way. It is almost as though killing Osama bin Laden has fueled the Obama Administration's desire to take out another terrorist leader (albeit one who also happens to be the rightful leader of a Muslim nation).

The problem is what happens after Qaddafi is either killed or steps down? We see with al Qaeda an almost renewed zeal in their commitment to attack the United States. We discover later that killing Osama bin Laden only solidified al Zawahiri's position as the undisputed leader. Getting rid of Qaddafi may allow an ever more despicable despot to have access to Libya's oil and wealth. The US track record for picking and supporting new regime leaders is unimpressive at best. From the Shah of Iran (backed by the US and implementer of the SAVAK) to the ineffectual Hamid Karzai, the US seems unable to understand the situation and find the right leader. Many would argue that is because the US is more concerned with how they will get along with the leader versus his domestic policies. No, that wasn't a politically incorrect statement. The US has not backed any female leaders of countries to replace ousted despots (at least not that I know. If you know of one, please post a comment about it).

The War Powers Act was in response to Nixon and his execution of the Vietnam War. In short, the WPA is an attempt to curb the President's ability to leave forces engaged in combat for extended periods of time costing the taxpayers money and using up critical military resources that may be desperately needed elsewhere.

International alliance divided over Libya command

During the Vietnam War, the United States pursued a unilateral strategy without seeking UN approval or Congressional support. Often the reason given was the Korean War and Vietnam War were not wars but conflicts. In response, the War Powers Resolution was passed over the veto of President Nixon on November 7, 1973, to provide procedures for Congress and the President to participate in decisions to send U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities. Of course, since its passing the War Powers Act has been ignored.

In Desert Storm, President Bush did seek a coalition of nations approved under UN resolution to liberate Kuwait. Once Kuwait was liberated, President Bush did not pursue Saddam Hussein as he felt this would have been beyond the scope of the UN resolution.

Twenty years later, President Obama is facing the same challenges.

"And like a parade of Pentagon officials the past few days, Obama insisted that the United States' lead military role will be turned over—"in days, not weeks"—to an international command of which the United States will be just one part.

The only problem: None of the countries in the international coalition can yet agree on to whom or how the United States should hand off responsibilities.

The sense of urgency among White House officials to resolve the command dispute is profound: with each hour the U.S. remains in charge of yet another Middle East military intervention, Congress steps up criticism that Obama went to war in Libya without first getting its blessing, nor defining precisely what the end-game will be. (On Monday, Obama sent Congress official notification that he had ordered the U.S. military two days earlier to commence operations "to prevent humanitarian catastrophe" in Libya and support the international coalition implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1973.)"


It does the United States no good for the rest of the world to see Congress and the President divided on this issue. The article points out the seeming contradiction of supporting the rebels but not ousting Gaddafi. Operation Odyssey Dawn is being run by US African Command (AFRICOM) which was created only four years ago (for just such a contingency?). Britain, France, Belgium and Canada are all providing forces but who will be in command in the next phase in undecided. As all of these countries are NATO members, should the structure be NATO or non-NATO? A legitimate question is why has NATO started to support operations that have nothing to do with protecting Europe fromt he Soviet Union (which was the sole reason for its creation). It can create the perception amongst other nations that NATO has imperialistic goals.

"Days, not weeks." Perhaps sensing Americans unease with entering yet another conflict, the Obama Administration is promising the involvement will only take days. However, the best laid plans rarely survive the first encounter with reality. Gaddafi is well armed and has not remained in power for nearly 40 years by being careless. I believe we will be in left in charge of Odyssey Dawn for many weeks to come.

Yahoo! News

Allied Powers Declare Military Action Against Libya

In case you have not heard, UN has authorized a no-fly zone over Libya. A no fly-zone really doesn't address the Gaddafi's ground forces that are pounding the rebels. The rebels are not as well armed which raises the specter of Western supply of arms to the rebels. Hmm, last I checked Gaddafi was still the legally in charge of Libya despite his ruthless tactics. Arming rebels is an overt way of overthrowing a ruler the West has decided needs to go. Why aren't more Middle Eastern countries protesting? Perhaps because the same groups are trying to takeover in these countries as well and could use the help from the West.

Gaddafi survived years of UN sanctions during the aftermath of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing. Before the outbreak of hostilities Libya produced around 2 percent of the world's oil. The West's intervention will inevitably be seen as a grab for the oil. Thus far, oil prices have not sky-rocketed as originally anticipated because of the crisis in Japan. The Japanese are not able to drive cars and trucks due to the earthquake so their need to import oil has dropped. The drop in demand from Japan is sufficient to keep prices from rising. However, Japan's demand is likely to rise once infrastructure is restored and to offset the loss of energy produced by Japan's nuclear reactors.

The United States is getting drug into ostensibly its third combat operation. US military doctrine has always looked at fighting one major campaign and a delaying on the second campaign. We will now have forces engaged in combat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Libya. What most people don't realize is we also have military forces in the Columbia battling drug cartels. We will also increase the number of National Guard on the Southwest Border. OPEC is watching all of this with some delight as the military burns up to fight all of these conflicts. Military contractors are enjoying the boost to their stocks as the rush to provide parts and supplies for this latest operation.

I suspect President Obama will remain consistent with his predecessors and avoid pursuing approval under the War Powers Act. He will also follow suit with the Bush Administration in using private contractors to the maximum extent possible. Private contractors allow the ability to meet the mission requirements without running afoul of military end-strength numbers or constituents getting pissed off because their sons and daughters are dying. The private contractors may not even come from the United States as in the case of Bahrain (which is now using Pakistani contractors to quell unrest), the contractors maybe from other nations (such as Bolivia).

Allied Powers Declare Military Action Against Libya - FoxNews.com