Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- Stand Still For the Apocalypse
- A Thermonuclear Energy Bomb in Christmas Wrappings
- Change Is Coming: Factory Farms' Days May Be Numbered
- Why You Shouldn’t Shop at Walmart on Friday (and Why the Strike is Good for the Economy)
- Sec. of State Hopeful Susan Rice Reportedly Holds 600k Stake in Keystone XL Decision
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama’s Libya War: Unconstitutional, Naïve, Hypocritical
Our founders would be appalled that a President of the United States could launch the country into an armed conflict half a world away without a formal declaration of war by Congress, much less barely any discussion of it by the House or by the Senate.
Article 1, Section 8, of our Constitution is unambiguous: Only Congress has the authority “to declare war.” James Madison warned that allowing the President to take the country into war would be “too much of a temptation for one man.”
At this point in the warping of our system of checks and balances, a President can wage war almost whenever he feels like it — or at least whenever he can cobble together some “broad coalition,” as Obama put it, or a “coalition of the willing,” as his predecessor put it.
Sounding just like George W. Bush when he attacked Iraq exactly eight years ago to the day, Obama said that military action against Libya was not our first resort.
Well, it may not have been the first resort, but it sure is Washington’s favorite resort.
We, as Americans, need to face facts: We have a runaway Executive Branch when it comes to warmaking.
And Obama appears naïve in the extreme on this one.
It is naïve to expect U.S. involvement in this war to be over in “days, not weeks,” as he said.
It is naïve to expect that he can carry this out without using ground troops.
It is naïve to wage war that is not in response to a direct threat to the U.S. national security.
It is naïve to expect millions of Libyans to cheer as their own country is being attacked by Western powers.
It is naïve to expect civilian casualties not to mount as a result of his actions, which he said were designed “to protect Libyan civilians.”
And it is naïve to expect the world to go along with the ruse that this is not a U.S.-led act of aggression.
Finally, Obama’s stated reasons for this war, which he refuses to call by its proper name, are hypocritical and incoherent.
He said “innocent men and women face brutality and death at the hands of their own government.”
That’s true of the people of Yemen, our ally, which just mowed down dozens of peaceful protesters.
That’s true of the people of Bahrain, our ally, which also just mowed down dozens of peaceful protesters.
Then there’s the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, our chief Arab ally and a repressive government in its own right, which just rolled its tanks into Bahrain.
In the Ivory Coast today, another country on good terms with Washington, a dictatorial government is brutalizing its people.
And a brutal junta has ruled the people of Burma for decades now.
There is no consistent humanitarian standard for Obama’s war against Libya. None whatsoever.
Obama has now pushed the United States to a place where we are now engaged in three wars simultaneously.
He’s a man, and we’re a country, that has gone crazy on war.''
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
112 Comments so far
Show AllHumanity has been "crazy on war" since before recorded history. I wish I knew how to get people to "get over it," but I've been pondering that for years and remain clueless.
Unconstitutional, naive, and hypocritical could characterize most of this nation's wars. I suppose I'll have to go along with the usual exception for World War II, the "good war." But there are even some dicey things in the backstory to that one.
Government's go to War, not individual -- want to end the united WAR states, then End the federal government, or else brace yourself for a lifetime of WAR!
peace. love. anarchy
I was born in 1949. The United States has been at war as long as I have been alive. I've become somewhat sick of it.
People have to be trained (as in systematically brutalized) in order to become warlike soldiers. To sustain militarism and empire, the US has enormously bloated military industrial complex.
Huge resources, rigid often brutal hierarchy and corrupt capitalism in a seething Stew.
Ain't that America, something to see baby
Violence is based in a deep feeling of 'powerlessness'. People do not understand that there are ways, as individuals, to release anger and rage in a constructive way, which does not mean 'management' or 'denial', etc. Go some where and scream your guts out - alone. You will feel the difference. Stay real. Stop repressing, but know that acting out only hurts yourself as well as others.
If everyone would do this it would be a different world. I have been a therapist for twenty years and it works. It is the way. Even if you 'channel' it to protests, which i do, and other activities - it doesn't release the anger it sublimates it. Our actions would get much more creative if we weren't using the anger, but releasing it and using the creative energy that emerges once the anger is transformed. Emotions happen in the body. They are how we experience events. To 'work through' an experience means to emote. But not act out. Emote it alone.
My gift to anyone who cares to try it. And it isn't once and done. It is an ongoing process. It balances the entire system.
"It is the way."
I am always wary when one blithely suggests that something "is the way". Perhaps it is 'a way', but I suggest that nothing "is THE way". Isn't that how all the trouble starts?
This is good advice for individuals, but completely misses the point regarding US foriegn policy.
Recent US wars in the middle east are not a product of angry acting out, but are a calculated decision to use military means in order to control world oil supplies.
War, like religion or health care....has become BIG BUSINESS. Period.
And pray tell, which period was that?
It is good advice for individuals, because then they wouldn't support all of the above.
I agree with that to the extent that many non-elite war supporters do so out of anger and powerlessness.
The powerful are another situation. Some may support war out of anger, but there are huge pro-war economic, political and social incentives built into the system that encourage the powerful to make a cold blooded calculation in support of war.
Rita, I agree that it stems from individual anger. After all, those in power are individuals too.
And we - those who are not in power - either allow it to happen or not based on where we are in this life. If we, too, are angry and powerless (they go hand-in-hand), of course we will support endless war. If we weren't angry and realized our power, we would not allow this to go on.
And yes, Obama is angry and naive and hypocritical and weak and a disaster.
"I agree that it stems from individual anger. After all, those in power are individuals too."
Aren't you down-playing systemic factors?
Isn't the basis of US middle eastern wars the need for oil, in alliance with an Isreali Lobby that equates Isreali & American security interests, in that order?
Your comment strikes me as an over-personalization of political economy and it is innaccurate and misleading.
"Aren't you down-playing systemic factors?"
I was addressing where change begins, and it doesn't begin in systems. Systemic factors are real, but systems are also made up of individuals.
Oil and the Israel Lobby are certainly part of the systemic factors (and there are others), but ask them to change. Go ahead. This can be a circular argument (and it often is) until we realize our role in the circle.
The insanity that is in the system is either supported and enhanced by us, as individuals, or it is not. That is OUR choice, not theirs. Asking IT to change before WE change is illogical and rather unethical.
Nothing inaccurate or misleading about it.
I still don't follow your logic.
This thread began with the assertion that the US invasion of Libya results from anger.
My point is that it results from an oligarchic strategy designed to control the world's oil supply.
Anger isn't much of a factor at all. This invasion is calcualted opportunism Faux psycho-analysis won't change that fact and I don't see any value in it.
But you see value in making prickly comments about ideas that don't jive with yours?
It seems there are at least a couple of people here who see the point of the article. And, by the way, that anger encompasses the oligarchy and its need for control. You can try to narrow problems down, but darn if they don't insist on being wider.
There is nothing Faux about anger or what it does, whether you see any value in that position or not.
If you find disagreement "prickly" that's your problem.
" anger encompasses the oligarchy and its need for control."
You still haven't demonstrated the truth or the utility of that statement.
The invasions correspond quite well with the Western elite's oil agenda. Occam's razor would indicate that's the end of the story
Your disagreement is valid, it is you who are prickly.
Regarding your Occam's razor analogy, I'll see your Occam and raise you one Mencken: "For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple--and
wrong." H.L. Mencken
End of story, no?
Are you calling me a prick, Ted? Frankly Ted, I don't care what you think of me; I rather enjoy being "prickly" in debate as it often brings out people's hidden assumptions. BTW, you are the one who got personal in this exchange; so maybe you ought to look in the mirror regarding "prickly" tendencies.
You seem to write from a perspective that emphasises inner psychological factors. I tend to view political issues based on external and provable factors. I don't accept the view that the State is just a bunch of individuals. It is an institution that has driving factors that are systemic and not personal in nature. People can politically change the nature of the state, but that takes either strategic insider power or a mass political movement.
If you are going to propose an answer that is more complex, you need to show that the simpler answer does not explain the facts, if you wish to remain in the arena of logical argument. Then the story begins again.
So far, you haven't shown why personal anger had any aprt in the decision to bomb Libya, nor have you shown the inadequecy the simple expalnation: imperial desire to control Libya's strategic location and oil
dreamjoehill, I'm trying to make sense of your distinction between "inner psychological factors" and "external and provable factors". I can easily see that a large part of the power of the system is derived from people's apathy and fear. Just as a schoolyard bully's apparent power is derived from the inability and reluctance of the good guys from taking him on. Even though a bunch of guys taking on the bully may appear to be "collective action", it has to be preceded by a willingness to take a risk and to oppose injustice.
Actually in a so-called democracy it's even worse, because in addition to apathy, people can also be genuinely stupid, selfish and moronic enough to not be able to see beyond their immediate selfish wants and can be easily manipulated by playing on their fears and prejudices. You are not alone in making this argument about systemic vs. personal and in denying that one follows from the other. People are not only victims, they are also enablers, beneficiaries and accomplices to varying degrees. Lasting change will necessarily have to start at the individual level.
My post has nothing to do with your back-and-forth with Ted Markow, but only prompted by this individual vs. collective action argument thrown around from time to time. Individual action does not preclude or prevent collective action. But collective action with complete disregard to change at the individual level will only produce temporary, illusory change. That is why I look at certain historical, so-called revolutions as nothing fundamental in nature.
Certainly the border between internal and external is a fuzzy one, but in politics, I don't find a lot of value in the idea that our empire's rulers are just people like you and me. That misses the point. Our corporate militarist empire is real and its structure and institutional factors dictate US foriegn policy.
As an example, Barack Obama and George W Bush are very different individuals, but both are emeshed in the National Security State and beholden to oligarchic financial interests. As a result, there are few major differences in war policy and both have pursued economic policies that primarily benefit the financial elite aka the banksters.
So an emphasis on the inner nature of our rulers misses the point.
Regarding thye masses, Individual awareness of common class interests is an important inner psychological change but of minor social significance socially until the individuals band together in collective action.
IMHO, the emphasis on individual thoughts and beliefs as the driver of history is a function of an illusory American Individualism, and is a major hinderance to mass working class action needed to fight the empire.
Ideals and beliefs are important primarily according to how they influence action, individually and collectively.
Thanks Ted. Those in power are individuals. To see the 'state' as something other than a collection of people is making the 'state' into a god. Many seem to do this. Big mistake. I have never known how to talk to the 'state'.
I don't think obama is naive, however. I think he is a slick oligarch.
Good to hear from you again!
before recorded history we were hunter- gatherers and went in small bands and shared everything. not much reason to have a war- nobody could be selfish or greedy. plus anyway there were no nation states, nor any other entity big enough to wage war.
I think it would be helpful for people to understand that there is nothing natural about war, nothing like that in our genes. Humans lived our first million years without war.
we need to try that again
At the same time, someone has always been at peace, somewhere, over that entire period.
Most people, actually.
War is not straightforward, universal human nature: it is a broad, perhaps universal contingency response, apparently in response to certain cases of insanity.
That's an interesting way of looking at it.
For the past ten years, Western inperial powers have once again institutionalized warfare as an ongoing, ceaseless operation.
And it is all about the oil endgame
Oil
Israel
Logistics
They gave the game away when they named the initial invasion of Iraq
Operation Iraqi Liberation
This US president isn't naive. He's a cynical Daley machine politician trying to pull a Maggie Thatcher of 1983 type khaki election as she did then. But he's no Maggie Thatcher and the USA isn't the UK of 1983, just happy to have a war that somebody might say the USA won and let it go at that. The economy is not coming back for at least 10 years. This is a depression, folks! Please. The mainstream media is one thing. They lie and lie about recovery so much that it's pathetic, but real people know it's a lie. Where the hell is this damn recovery? Maybe those on Wall Street who robbed the US taxpayers have had a recovery or just bigger yachts, personal planes, and more small islands in the South Pacific than they did. What the hell does that prove about our criminal pampered overwealthy power elties? Hey, how about some austerity afteer some time behind bars for these criminals and those running the Pentagon along with the rest of their assorted accomplices?
This US president isn't naive. He's a cynical Daley machine politician trying to pull a Maggie Thatcher of 1983 type khaki election as she did then. But he's no Maggie Thatcher and the USA isn't the UK of 1983, just happy to have a war that somebody might say the USA won and let it go at that. The economy is not coming back for at least 10 years. This is a depression, folks! Please. The mainstream media is one thing. They lie and lie about recovery so much that it's pathetic, but real people know it's a lie. Where the hell is this damn recovery? Maybe those on Wall Street who robbed the US taxpayers have had a recovery or just bigger yachts, personal planes, and more small islands in the South Pacific than they did. What the hell does that prove about our criminal pampered overwealthy power elties? Hey, how about some austerity afteer some time behind bars for these criminals and those running the Pentagon along with the rest of their assorted accomplices?
What our nation's founders knew, and we apparently don't, is that being "a war president" and "a decider" is dangerously intoxicating and addictive.
How will it all end? Nuclear fission killing us all, US imperial wars imperiling us all or climate change choking or drowning us all?
Naïve?? Please.
It is naïve to believe that Obama actually believes any of the bullshit he is spouting.
Please do not use the word "naive" when describing Obama's intentions. It denotes sincerity. There is no sincerity in this man. That misinformation may give people a reason to support him.
true, I've just read two brilliant books on Stalin "Stalin and his hangmen" and "The court of the red Tsar". Both told numerous stories of Stalins victims who wished that someone would tell Stalin so that the atrocities cold end, as if he didn't know about ever killing.
Plausible deniability.
It seems that there are few in our Congress who understand the Constitution. It says very clearly in Section 8 that the Congress shall have the power:
To declare War, ... 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 my reading, there is no "legal" way to circumvent such clear language - what part of "NO" don't you understand?, BUT it has been done with the, IMHO, clearly unconstitutional "War Powers Act" . This is what the Supreme Court is "supposed" to do, isn't it?. In this case, declare the WPA un-constitutional, and, furthermore, the Congress CANNOT amend the Constitution. Therefore, Resolutions that Congress has passed over the last 60 years and continuing to this day Ceeding this Power to the President are in Total contravention of the Constitution. It says Clearly that only Congress has the Constitutional power to declare War.
Furthermore, look at the appropriations clause. "To raise & support...for no longer that 2 years" ! We now have - and since WW I - a Standing Army & Navy. Clearly unconstitutional - even though Eisenhower warned us in his Farewell Address, to whit: "...beware the unwarranted influence of the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex".
Our goose is cooked. These few Congress people are voices screaming into the wind. I do admire them, but tragically, they cannot stop the Juggernaut.
OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL!
Is all you need to know.
OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL!
Is all you need to know.
OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL!
Is all you need to know.
OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL! OIL!
Is all you need to know.
Move away nothing to see here. No change you can believe in . Shared sacrifice? Children under five getting cuts in food and education amounting to at least 25% among many other draconian cuts to vulnerable American citizens some who will die due to lack of necessities. Who is more important ? Libyans evidently! Has this been going on for years where America is trillions of dollars in dept cutting funds for poor, sick, elderly, education, health care,probably infrastructure, environment but having enough money for three unending wars without raising taxes on the rich? Seems to me taxes were raised during war in the past. This is March Madness!
Great comment, genie.
I really hate this phrase, but it's perfect for this circumstance: Deja vu all over again.
It's disheartening, depressing, and frightening.
America is GWAR...
”We're on this planet, running amok. We should give a shit but we don't give a fuck!”
"It is naïve to wage war that is not in response to a direct threat to the U.S. national security."
This author just engaged in the worst example of framing I've ever seen. He wanted a meme, and he trampled on truth to get it. Pathetic.
So the conspiracy to engage in the resource wars of Afghanistan and Iraq boils down to what? According to Mathew Rothschild, the answer is mere naivety.
True, global destruction is never naive.
Who was it that said something to the effect that, "it's just a piece of paper"? Seems not only does everyone have a gun but shredder's are proliferating too.
Naive? NOT. The only thing the three branches of the Corporate Empire are doing is carrying us in a handbasket to Hell, what with the DU and the Correxit and what not.
The constitution is unfortunately vague. Is there a legal definition of war?
If not, it would be a good idea to press representatives into supporting a bill that does define war. Possibly even congressians who support the war in Libya (or Somalia, Yemen, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Gaza, etc, etc.) might want to have some hypothetical authority in such a situation.
And if enough congressians can agree, then press them on specifics, e.g. that war should be defined as sending at least one member of the Department of Defense/military or CIA to any country for any reason, including the renewal of contracts at foreign bases or sending aid of any type to another country that it might use it in war.
"or sending aid of any type to another country that it might use it in war."
The American government has always maintained the right of its citizens to ship arms to belligerents. President Washington took this position when France protested against the sale of arms to England in 1793, the answer being that "the exporting from the United States of warlike instruments and military stores is not to be interfered with."
- Theodore Roosevelt's "Fear God..."p.160
The fact of the matter is this: Saudi Arabia was in large part behind the farce we call 9-11. Bin Laden is(was?) a CIA tool. We use terrorists as freedom fighters and call our enemies terrorists. We invented Islamic terrorism. When Obama says he is protecting "civilians" he basically proves that he is the enemy of world peace.He's a monster, a terrorist, a liar, a thief, and a mass murderer. Hyperbole? I don't think so.
" When Obama says he is protecting "civilians" he basically proves that he is the enemy of world peace.He's a monster, a terrorist, a liar, a thief, and a mass murderer. Hyperbole? I don't think so"
Spot on. Obama is a monster.
"Our founders would be appalled that a President of the United States could launch the country into an armed conflict half a world away without a formal declaration of war by Congress, much less barely any discussion of it by the House or by the Senate."
This is a very naive statement that furthers myths concerning the founding fathers. The United States has been involved in over 200 military conflicts since the constitution was adopted. Of those, only 5 times has had a declaration of war (1812, Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII). George Washington himself was involved in wars of aggression against the indigenous population when he was president (he was known as Conotocarious to the Iroquois, which translated to town destroyer). He didn't get congressional approval to destroy the Iroquois! What about the Seminole war? The Creek war? The Cherokee? The Shawnee? We have been conducting these wars since our nation was founded.
I know this article is from "The Progressive" so I should expect it to perpetuate myths about the "glorious" founding fathers. We should expect more from the article we read on CD.
The article fails to mention the invasion of Grenada under Reagan and the bombing of Kosovo under Clinton, not to mention all of the other interventions the country has been involved in without authority from Congress.
On the other hand, would Congress have approved intervention in Rwanda? No one asked them to, and we have been critcized ever since for not stopping genocide there.
The subject is more complicated than it seems at first glance.
Tarheel. Excellent comment. I totally agree. The US has so much murder on it's hands. I read we have killed over 9 million people since the religious nuts landed here. Wiped out the Indians. Smallpox blankets. STOLE their land. Imported lesser humans and tortured and killed them. The nice christian male would rape a slave and then go to church.
I don't know what America people want back. Maybe the part whete white people live lives of luxury.
How is it that the rest of the world doesn't wipe us out? Is it our bases in their countries holding them hostage or is this the global elites plan?