I have mixed feelings about dropping bombs on Libya. I would be perfectly happy to see Muammar Gaddafi overthrown, but we have little idea who would replace him. With such an uncertain outcome, I have little desire to see the United States involved in a Libyian civil war. However, Muammar Gaddafi’s savagery weighs against doing nothing, and Western nations such as our own provide the oil money Gaddafi uses to finance his tyranny.
So we must carefully consider taking a stand against Gaddafi. Unfortunately, we now are dropping bombs, and our people have not considered the matter.
Yesterday, the United Nations passed a resolution. Here the BBC begins an analysis.
The UN Security Council has passed a resolution authorising “all necessary measures” to protect civilians in Libya from pro-Gaddafi forces. BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus deciphers the precise meaning of the resolution. Key excerpts are set against comment and analysis by our correspondent. (continued here)
Whatever it says, it is apparently authorization to drop bombs.
Britain and America have rained missiles on Libya as Col Muammar Gaddafi defied the world and continued to attack civilians.
American destroyer USS Barry launches a Tomahawk missile at Libya Photo: REUTERS
David Cameron ordered British forces into action against Libya in “Operation Ellamy”, saying the bombardment was “necessary, legal and right”.
Explosions were reported at an airport east of Tripoli as a British Trafalgar Class submarine and US Navy ships and submarines stationed off Libya fired 110 Tomahawk missiles at 20 targets in what one source described as a “night of carnage”.
The missiles targeted Libyan command and control centres, radar installations and surface-to-air missile sites. Libyan officials said the attacks were “barbaric” and causing civilian casualties. (continued here)
Of course, we have the usual editorial in the Washington Post expressing pleasure with President Obama.
Many Americans — and Arabs, too, for that matter — have a visceral sense that if there’s a war in the Middle East, the United States must be in the vanguard. I’m glad that’s not the case this weekend with the Libyan intervention. Americans should be happy to let France and Britain, who live in the neighborhood, take the lead. (continued here)
Here is how President Obama authorized our involvement.
President Obama’s full remarks
Good afternoon, everybody. Today I authorized the Armed Forces of the United States to begin a limited military action in Libya in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians. That action has now begun.
In this effort, the United States is acting with a broad coalition that is committed to enforcing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which calls for the protection of the Libyan people. That coalition met in Paris today to send a unified message, and it brings together many of our European and Arab partners. (continued here)
How will this work out? I do not know, but I do find it curious that the UN, not Congress, now issues Declarations of War for the United States. It is not suppose to work that way (see Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution), but I suspect many chicken legislators will be quite relieved to know they did not have to take any responsibility.
Since today was a beautiful spring day, I expected most bloggers to be out enjoying the weather. Nonetheless, there were quite a few diehards online.
At Bearing Drift, Ward Smythe asks a question: Did I Miss a Declaration of War?
In Yet Another Obama Reset, Martin M. McMartin of Disrupt the Narrative points to past statements by Constitutional experts that define the limits of presidential power. Wait until you read whose statement he quotes.
With Coalition Forces Begin Military Operations in Libya, lowkell of Blue Virginia nonjudgementally repeats the party line. If you want an objective report, that is the place to go. 😉
At Virginia Virtucon, Phil Chroniger reviews an editorial by Andrew C. McCarthy, Go To Congress First. Both Chroniger in his post, The GOP Split on Libya – A Good Sign, and McCarthy in his editorial, object to military intervention in Libya. What they object to even more is the lack of Congressional authorization.
At Virginia Right, we have an odd, but interesting article, RON PAUL’S INFLUENCE on the GOP GROWS! LIBYA MAY BRING TEA PARTY and LIBERTARIANS TOGETHER! by Elwood “Sandy” Sanders. What is significance of the Tea Party and Libertarians joining forces? Establishment Republicans do not hold the Constitution in sufficiently high regard. Too often they charge ahead without worrying themselves about it.
In Military action likely in Libya in the next 24 hours, The Richmonder reflects the gung-ho, militaristic stance the Democratic Party. Yep! Without constitutional authorization, a war run by Democrats is fine and dandy.