The Libya Debate

Over a week ago, the United States began its first military operation under President Obama. The President decided to utilize the US military to protect civilians and human rights in Libya. Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi had been forcefully putting down a rebel uprising against his 41 years in power. Obama acted on United Nations Security Resolution 1973 which called for the implementation of a no-fly zone over Libya. So far the very brief facts.

As soon as Obama authorized the military to carry out cruise missile strikes from ships in the Mediterranean Sea to disable Gaddafi's air defenses, the question of the legitimacy of the President's actions arose in the United States' media. Leading the way, my favorite red news network titled "Should Obama have consulted Congress?" and the commentaries below the article and internet poll all called for the impeachment of the President. Some comments were so far removed from fact and reality that they prompted me to create a fake email address so I could create a user account. I entered the debate and hoped to simply point out some other sides of the story (not that I actually thought that it would make too much of a difference). Here are some of the greatest misconceptions about the legality of the military intervention:

1) Obama doesn't have the right to declare war. Guess what, he didn't! And actually the US hasn't declared war since 1941. All later 'wars' were legalized through Congressional consent for the President to use necessary force to reach a military/political goal. Which leads to number two.

2) Unlike ANY other President, Obama took away Congressional rights. Well truth is, it wasn't just him. The Presidency as an institution has derived more and more rights and powers from Congress ever since FDR. Obama may or may not be acting within the realm of those inherent powers, but whether they are actually in the Constitution has nothing to with his Presidency in particular. If it was unconstitutional, you may want to question some other Presidents' actions, too. And I'm not only talking about G. W. Bush.

3) DISENFRANCHISING Congress. One branch of government cannot take away responsibilities from another. The other way around, yes. One branch can delegate to another. However, the mere notion that Obama has to report on everything he does and Congress only waits for him to do that is simply false. Remember checks and balances? Yes, checks especially. If Congress is unhappy, it can do something about it. Actually, Congress is considered the most powerful branch of government because it has the money! And other means of controlling the President.

4) Most importantly: Congress has a problem with the President following a UN Resolution. No, as a matter of fact, the Senate unanimously agreed on supporting a UN sanctioned no-fly zone before the UN passed a resolution and before Obama authorized its implementation. There may be differences among Congressmen and women as to how the military operations should be specifically conducted but generally there is Congressional support for the necessity of intervention in Libya's civil war. According to Gallup, a plurality of Americans also supports the intervention.

In conclusion, I just wanted to make everyone aware of the other side of this debate. This is not intended to defend the President. It is rather to ensure that all sides are considered and not only one portrayed in the 24 hour news cycle.

For continued coverage of the situation in Lybia:

BBC News - Libya Crisis