Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Tries, Without Success, To Explain An Undeclared War
President Obama finally got around to speaking to the American people about the fact that he has led the country into a third war.
Barack Obama delivers a speech at the National Defense University in Washington, DC about the UN-sanctioned intervention in Libya, 28 March 2011. Despite the calm and measured argument, the problem is that presidents are not supposed to start wars, especially wars of whim that are offensive rather than defensive in nature. It's actually written in the Constitution. (Photograph: Jim Young/Reuters)
The speech was, to no one's surprise, ably delivered. The president spoke with emotional and rhetorical power of how he felt there had been a need to intervene in order to prevent "a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world." He explained how there are times "when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are." He decried the temptation "to turn away from the world" and promised that "wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States."
Those are noble sentiments, well expressed.
Unfortunately, he also spoke about how he had initiated the way on his own: "I ordered warships into the Mediterranean." I refused to let that happen." "I authorized military action..." "At my direction..."
The problem is that presidents are not supposed to start wars, especially wars of whim that are offensive rather than defensive in nature. That was the complaint against George W. Bush when he failed to obtain a declaration of war before ordering the invasion of Iraq, that is the ongoing complaint against Obama for maintaining the undeclared wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And that is the legitimate and necessary complaint against Obama now, a complaint that should come not just opponents of the military intervention but supporters who want that intervention to be lawful and legitimate.
The president did not address the fact that the Libyan adventure is an undeclared war. In fact, he barely mentioned the Congress that is supposed to declare wars, saying only: "And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973."
But the Constitution does not discuss "consulting the bipartisan leadership..." It says that: "Congress shall have the power... to declare war, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water."
That was the point that Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, made with regard to the speech.
Suggesting that "President Obama owes the nation an explanation as to why he had time to consult with 15 members of the UN Security Council, 22 members of the Arab League, and later, with 28 members of NATO, to garner support for an attack with Great Britain and France, but had no time to come to the United States Congress for prior authorization before attacking Libya," Kucinich argued that: “Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution is very clear. It is Congress that determines when our nation goes to war. President Obama superseded that authority and bought a new war for the American people without Congressional approval. We must know what it will cost, how long it will last, what is the end game, and when will NATO -- whose military bills we pay -- get out."
Kucinich continued: “President Obama’s failure to come to Congress, as required by the Constitution, left us without the opportunity to have a full and ample debate on the merits of military intervention in Libya. As such, I intend to offer a bipartisan amendment to cut off funds for U.S. participation in the war to the next funding measure. I want to thank Representatives Ron Paul (R-TX), Walter Jones (R-NC), Tom McClintock (R-CA), Pete Stark (D-CA) and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) for their co-sponsorship of the amendment."
Kucinich has been a steady and outspoken critic of the president's failure to seek a declaration of war.
But, after Obama spoke, other members of Congress voiced their objections.
Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, issued a statement immediately following the president's speech, which began: “I oppose the current engagement of U.S. military forces in Libya. Our nation cannot afford a third war and Congress has not authorized it."
Echoing Kucinich, she said: "The Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war. Defense Secretary Gates has publicly stated that Libya is not a vital interest of the United States. Congress must debate and act on this new military engagement in Libya."
Baldwin also raised other concerns: "For a decade now, the U.S. has been fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have spent nearly a trillion dollars of borrowed money and lost nearly 6,000 American lives. Thousands more servicemen and women have suffered serious, life-altering injuries. Even as they support these wars with no clearly defined mission or exit strategy, House Republicans are seeking deep cuts in job creation efforts, veterans’ services, health care, education, and transportation. These are misguided priorities."
"Our troops must be brought home safely and soon from Afghanistan and Iraq; and Congress must return its focus to creating jobs, educating our children, and ensuring access to quality, affordable health care for all Americans,” concluded Baldwin.
97 Comments so far
Show All"This represents a far more expansive assertion of the right to wage war than was made even under the Bush administration, which claimed, based upon lies, that its wars were necessitated by an imminent threat from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
Obama insists that no such threat is needed, merely a challenge to US “interests and values.” Is there any corner of the world where the US-based transnational banks and corporations do not have at stake such “interests and values”—up to and including the “flow of commerce?” Obama is arguing for a rationale for US military aggression whenever and wherever it can serve to further the interests of America’s ruling elite."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/obam-m29.shtml
Delia:
As usual, the wsws.org provided an excellent analysis of the Liar-in-Chief's duplicitous speech on Libya. I swear, Delia, I grow to despise this phony cretin more with each passing day. It's to the point that, like Bush, I can no longer tolerate the sound of his voice; I find him to be utterly vacuous, which makes him the perfect spokes-mouth for the empty corporate vessels that now control the planet.
When he was first elected, I remember thinking that he could be more dangerous than Bush....sadly, I (and many who post on CD) was right. I never thought I'd
wish the odious Bush were still president, but if he were, I believe that half the shit that's taken place over the last two years would not have happened because the public outcry from the (supposed) liberal/dem base would have been resounding, which is precisely why Obama was the chosen replacement. Instead of indignation and disgust, all I hear from my psuedo-left friends is deafening silence as Obama continues to complete the 40-year, right-wing process of turning the US into a corporate/imperialist/totalitarian oligarchy.
It seems most of you here are unhappy with the o’bummer and the status quo.
So am I.
The only way to possibly change this shit is counterintuitive.
We have to destroy it, in order to save it.
In 2012, vote for Rethugs and other regressives across the board, hastening the Merican Empires collapse.
Then, be prepared to control the Phoenix and recreate a more just order.
Cuz it won't change it otherwise…….
Ps. It's not gonna be fun and remember to keep the guillotines oiled
"Obama is arguing for a rationale for US military aggression whenever and wherever it can serve to further the interests of America’s ruling elite."
BINGO!
Maybe we'll beat the Brits and the Frogs to the best looking Libyan war brides. I like fetching (hot) war brides. More wars!
Trylon
I did not watch the speech because I knew pretty well what the scoundrel would say. Nevertheless, when I saw the headline in my newspaper this morning I gagged. According to that report Mr. Obama averred that the war in Libya was a "duty". Now, that is a new concept for going to war! "Duty calls"!!! If this is correct then duty calls in Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. It does not matter how many protesters are killed or imprisoned, duty is duty.
Our nation is ruled by an American Don Quixote who must now come to the rescue of these Mid-Eastern damsels because it is his duty.
Who is his Sancho Panza?
Cervantes was a visionary.
I was shocked too. But also repulsed when he said "other countries might look the other way when people are being killed, but not America!"
OH MY GOD! I have to say it again: oh my God!
Since 1945, up to last night in Libya, America has incinerated more people than all the other nations combined, and then some, and this creep goes in front of the camera with a straight face and utters THAT?
I forgot Jordan.
Actually, "Duty" is an old excuse for war, perhaps the oldest.
agreed, Mark Abram. Iraq and Afghanistan were okay for most of the people arguing against Libya, in spite of Bush attacking Iraq 10 months before congressional approval.
The War Powers Act allows the President to attack any country threatening the interests of the US. He has 60 days before a congressional declaration of war is needed and can ask for an additional 30 days (which is a formality as it has to be granted).
If he were white and republican, and doing the same thing, I'm sure most of the angry white people would be less disturbed.
Well edited, decently delivered, mostly meaningless hogwash.
This guy is far more dangerous and scary than that dry drunk Bush.
Obama, while nowhere near as compelling a speaker as Martin Luther King, seems to be improving his message delivery skills. I didn’t hear his usually constant use of the word ‘um’ between paragraphs.
Can you imagine if today Hamas could rally the illegally oppressed Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and especially in Israel proper to peacefully protest/work stop en mass? The sheeple would quickly see how much of this guy’s rhetoric is pure rubbish.
of so he tried unsuccessfully did he
sounds like your opinion was made up prior to him speaking
djb,
So you again defending Obama? You should watch a video of Obama in a Town Hall meeting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujwE-OYCjbw&feature=player
_embedded#at=19
Suppose Obama is right: that there would have been a humanitarian catastrophe if the US did not intervene in Libya. Wouldn't days of fruitless arguing in Congress endanger the lives of many? I am not sure Nichols is entirely correct in using the word "war" to describe what the US is doing in Libya. Military engagement is not necessarily the same as war. Afghanistan is war: Considerable planning went into the operation, bases were established, lines of supply, tactics developed, funding applied for (after the fact) and so on. Our destruction of planes, tanks, runways and so on does not seem the same as what we are doing in Afghanistan.
On the other hand, it is fair to ask when and how this thing is going to end. What are the limits of US involvement? How do we know when we can leave Libya alone? What are the costs of this conflict, both human and financial?
The president's insistence that NATO was taking over management of the conflict was disingenuous. To a large degree, the US is NATO, especially when it comes to the use of military force. NATO is supposed to be engaged in Afghanistan, but mostly it is the US that is bearing the costs.
Did have to laugh at the president's insistence that the US is lining up behind the democracy movement in the Middle East. Tell that to your ordinary Arab on the streets of most any country over there. You won't find much agreement.
Please do me a favor and look up "war" in as many dictionaries as you can reach to clear up your addled mind.
drosera
Libya is a slaughter
Afghanistan is a soon to fail occupation
Iraq is a failed occupation
All three are War Crimes!
"that there would have been a humanitarian catastrophe if the US did not intervene in Libya"
All wars for our business interests are presented to the public as humanitarian. We've turned our backs on humanitarian catastrophes in Africa, China, and other places when the payback isn't sufficient.
Suddenly we care about principles instead of our interests? I think not.
agreed dmg; humanitarianism is only brought forth to appease the bleeding hearts. In reality, the war profiteers are the driving force. Haliburton comes to mind.
Africa, China, and others would require that we put profit behind humanitarianism and that just cant happen in the business of war.... the true US #1 Gross Domestic Product.
"Suddenly we care about principles instead of our interests? I think not."
Well said, dmgreenaz!
>>How do we know when we can leave Libya alone? <<
When all the oil is gone.
The question you should be asking is since when the hell is it the U.S.'s business to intervene? Oh, that's right, the U.S. is the great global superpower, so of course it is our business to intervene. What total bullshit!
I expected a few Obama-worshippers/apologists to come out of the woodwork, on cue.
I would be curious to see what your opinion on this subject would be if the U.S. were attacked some day, by, say, the Chinese or some other nation. If you woke one day to the sight of foreign bombers flying over your neighborhood, dropping bombs on your neighborhood? Then you read in the paper that the foreign country decided to launch an invasion of the U.S. to "protect the poor people of the U.S. from the evil dictator that was suppressing their freedoms."
I know what your hypocritical response would be. You would say "how dare they invade my country!! This is the mighty U.S.! Nobody has the right to invade this country!!" AS you frothed at the mouth, grabbed your gun, and ran out into the streets to fight back against the savage foreign invaders. And you would call yourself a patriot. Meanwhile, the foreign country would call you a "Terrorist" for fighting against them, when they are only there to protect you from your government.
Let me guess. "That's different." Right?
Pfft. Wrong. No fucking difference.
"I am not sure Nichols is entirely correct in using the word "war" to describe what the US is doing in Libya."
-- In regards to War:
This is what warfare in the age of globalization looks like. There are a variety of self interests at play here, and the objectives of warfare become blurred due to these differing self interests. Because of this it will naturally follow the logic that the Libyan conflict cannot be pinned down to one single objective as the reason for engaging in this conflict. The totality of the self-interests of the several countries who are participating in this conflict are all furthering their own self interests, but are doing so under the banner of a 'common interest.' This complex interrelationship among these differing self interests makes it difficult to 'officially' classify what this war is all about.
I am reminded of old saying that said: "All friendship is in flux... self interest is the only constant."
I see a bunch of folks comparing the Libya conflict to GW Bush's invasion of Iraq. I think it is more comparable to Papa Bush's Desert Storm. The move Saddam made back then was a direct threat to the oil life-line of western countries. Gadafy has done the same. The international response was also similar -- a mix of differing national interests joining the fight to preserve their own self interests.
Do you mean to argue that military action that's badly or scantily planned does not qualify as war?
There is a humanitarian catastrophe in Libya. 0's not so much incorrect as misleading when he says there would have been had he not intervened. The US just is not there to stop it, but to take advantage of it to gain control of the oil.
Since we know 0 is not interested in democracy or in saving the lives of dissidents, we have to imagine that the US is planning how to get in, not how to get out or when to leave Libya alone. (When the oil is pumped out, no?) So he goes it, shoots or bombs people on both sides and calls that "moderation," takes control, and claims it as a humanitarian intervention.
Of course the EU won't want to bear the costs of extending US hegemony to another source of petroleum, so any support will be token, and against the will of a huge % of the populations.
OK, in the process of killing people without Congressional oversight, 0bama has also violated the US Constitution, as well as most any moral code since Hammurabi. I can't say I see that as the biggest point to make here; almost every US military action since WWII has involved more less the same abrogation of power by the US executive. Still, it doesn't make much sense to imagine that people are generally safer anywhere because the US executive has slipped its leash and decided to very publicly declare its right to murder without any oversight. That *is* the point of allowing Congressional and other debate, and, while debate in Congress may be more fruitless than most, it is something.
Nah. Nichols' is one good point among many.
I am keeping my eyes on Turkey. If that government does not disassociate itself completely from the current NATO bombing soon it may seriously alienate not only the younger generation but much of the nation itself.
At thew Paris Peace Conference 1919-1920 Turkey was royally screwed by the allied powers but it did not work because one the man known as Kemal Ataturk. He is still the greatest hero of the Turkish nation today. You will find pictures of him everywhere in Turkey.
It is glaringly obvious that the current Turkish government was royally screwed by the Obama administration into voting for the NATO solution. The Turkish youth, especially the numerous well-educated jobless youngsters, know this and may be asking "what would Kemal do"?
There may be unrest, perhaps even demonstrations in Turkey soon. Not because the Turkish government is dictatorial but because it allowed the nation to be screwed and did nothing about it.
They'll bend over . . . like everyone else.
According to many people in America, 'we are losing our country'. I wonder who those people are waiting for. For them, who or what country will intervene and help 'save America'?
So is John Nichols willing to take it one step further and call for impeachment? Why don't Kucinich, Paul, Walter Jones, and all the other politicians who say this is illegal calling for impeachment? We need to get the conversation going, so future presidents will never, ever start a war without the consent of the people. (I realize getting the consent of Congress would have probably been kabuki just like TARP was, but I want each member of Congress to have to their phones ringing off the hook and I want them to have their votes recorded on Obama's costly and unnecessary Libyan War).
Impeach this SOB for going to war without Congressional consent.
Impeachment? Heck, Nichols and Kucinich, will vote to reelect him and urge you to do the same.
See also "The Unspeak of Liberal War":
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/201132881618969257.html
"Liberal war's last service is to locate the source of violence in the natives, on the backward peoples of the non-European world, not on the Westerners who exploit, invade, occupy and bomb."
"...wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States."
Really? Tell that to the people of Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, Palestine, Venezuela, East Timor, Iran, Cambodia, Grenada, Haiti etc., etc.
Beyond idiotic. Why does the evidence against such "...noble sentiments..." have to be constantly repeated? It is utterly bewildering that so many Americans continue to swallow this shameless, whoring rubbish.
Bewildering, perhaps, but hardly surprising. American mythology has been and is perpetuated by an all-pervasive system and machinery of propaganda of which even the Soviets stood in awe. By comparison, Goebbels was a mere amateur and rational assessments of any informational contents are utterly irrelevant.
Yes, it isn't too dissimilar here in the UK, but it seems a very basic point that smashing democratic movements and propping up dictatorships isn't exactly championing a love of freedom. It's all just too depressing.
All of you voted for Obama. So stop whinning, and work for an alternative candidate to Obama. Oh I forgot, there aren't any wealthy progressives.
A very strange disconnect is becoming even more apparent when Obama applies all kinds of constraints to the war in LIbya that he doesn't apply to Iraq and Afghanistan. Even 2 years into his term, Obama doesn't feel in any way responsible for War #1 And War #2.
Paraphrasing:
"The US won't go it alone in Libya. There won't be any ground troops in LIbya. We won't spend a long time in Libya. "
What does this say about his Iraq and Afghanistan policies?
Obama has 3 wars.
He owns them all.
But it's not war. It's "Operation Odyssey Dawn."
Yep, that makes it ok.
Odyssey Dawn = Long Journey Begins
(Not, Operation Quickie Done-soon Greeted As Liberators Tommy Franks Has It Figured Out? )
Exactly! When I heard this was going to be a fast operation, I thought-- isn't that what they told us about Iraq??
Rumsfeld told us a few months and maybe $50 billion ought to do it in Iraq.
dkshaw:
Yes, and as I recall it was Rumsfeld crony and fellow neocon Kenneth Adelman, editorializing in the Washington Post back in 2002, who predicted that "...liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk."
I propose a new operation ----- "Operation No More Voting For Corporate Criminal Democrats Even If Means The Republicans Win Because The Latest Election Proved That There Is No Difference Between The Two Parties Outside Of Cosmetic Rhetoric".
I am one of those who does NOT refer to this as 'war'... The word 'war' implies symmetry - an opposing force of some strength. What we have is a 'slaughter' - actually 4, Iraq, Pak, Af, Libya, plus all the hidden slaughters that are covered up and hidden in the USA Black Budget.
Too bad the dogs of war won't allow a total transparency of whom is running this country. Even more ominous is the obvious complicity of congress and o by not going into investigative mode to look into this horrid machination that is so well covered over least those behind the curtains are exposed to the light of day. Not that that would really help. With the state of the mainstream media and its well cultivated and fertilized dumbstream garden, nothing next to nothing will change.
And the people will still stand around and stare.
There you go again you silver forked tongue, devil! We all feel bad about the innocent civilians in Libya...except Obama and his masters! This is nothing more than a ploy to co-opt the revolution in Libya for the benefit of the American Empire.
Our killers must be stopped. Our instigators behind the scenes must be stopped. Our Congress of Killers must be stopped. And finally, our (newest) 'worst president' must be stopped.
I guess it will take an occupation of Washington D.C. to stop their madness.
They are killing our nation and the world by their violence and mayhem. They are nothing less than psychos.
Nobel Peace Prize winner! What a sad joke this world has become!
As a lifelong Democrat, I am ashamed that so many in the party are still supporting Obama.
Well, I guess I really haven't been a Democrat since 2009, when it became clear that Obama had no plans to pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan, and that he had no plans of closing Gitmo or any other US gulag. I'm really a socialist now.
Still, even as a former Democrat, I am ashamed for the party. They might as well be supporting Charlie Sheen.
charlie sheen? nah. his father. now there was a president. bartlet-2012.
charlie sheen? nah. his father. now there was a president. bartlet-2012.
I disagree with the author.
- ...the undeclared wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -
Public Law 107-40 authorized the President to surge the US military against enemies to be named later (Bush named al-Qaeda and the Taliban).
Public Law 107-243 authorized the President to surge the US military against Saddam's Iraq.
Remember, the Constitution does not specify which words amount to a declaration of war. So, Iraq and Afghanistan are NOT undeclared wars. They are badly-declared wars*, and it is Congress's fault.
The author completely ignores Congress's insane and odious law-making, which has surrendered their war-making power to the Executive.
The author only bashes the President, and forgets completely about Congress's role in providing the Constitutional justification for the President to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.
* read the war resolutions. The goals for invading Iraq were moot, because Iraq was not a threat to the US and was not disobeying UN Security Council resolutions.
The goal for 'Afghanistan' is to prevent future terrorism, which is insane and unachievable. Both are due to the awful legislation produced by our feckless Congress (except Barbara Lee, who alone voted against P.L. 107-40).
When Congress passes terrible awful legislation and Presidents take advantage, why is it only the President's fault?