Libya No Model
With Qaddafi on the run, we're now hearing about Libya being a model for future U.S. interventions.
The New York Times today reports that Administration officials say the Libyan intervention "may, in some important ways, become a model for how the United States wields force in other countries where its interests are threatened."
I should hope not.
With Qaddafi on the run, we're now hearing about Libya being a model for future U.S. interventions.
The New York Times today reports that Administration officials say the Libyan intervention "may, in some important ways, become a model for how the United States wields force in other countries where its interests are threatened."
I should hope not.
Because what the United States and its European allies did was "international gangsterism," as Dennis Kucinich so colorfully put it the other day.
Obama violated the Constitution and the War Powers Act by bombing Libya without Congressional approval when Libya didn't pose a threat to the United States. And there's a big difference between threatening the United States and threatening U.S. "interests": Any country that opposes free trade and corporate domination may be said to threaten U.S. interests, at least the way the power elite defines them. So now future Presidents can cite the Libya intervention as precedent for bombing, say, Venezuela.
For their part, the allies violated the U.N. Security Council resolutions on Libya by providing huge amounts of weapons to the rebels when those resolutions had imposed an arms embargo on all parties.
What's more, the CIA trained the rebel forces and guided their assaults.
And the rationale that Obama used, late in the game, for not abiding by the War Powers Act was a classic: The Administration said that because Libya's air defenses were wiped out, U.S. pilots were no longer in harm's way, so Congress need not worry about it.
You can call this the Obama Doctrine if you want, but it amounts to this: The President can go bomb any country it wants so long as that country doesn't have air defenses, or the President can destroy a country's air defenses and continue to wage war against that country--all without bothering to get approval from Congress.
This is but a recipe for more international gangsterism in the years ahead.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
With Qaddafi on the run, we're now hearing about Libya being a model for future U.S. interventions.
The New York Times today reports that Administration officials say the Libyan intervention "may, in some important ways, become a model for how the United States wields force in other countries where its interests are threatened."
I should hope not.
Because what the United States and its European allies did was "international gangsterism," as Dennis Kucinich so colorfully put it the other day.
Obama violated the Constitution and the War Powers Act by bombing Libya without Congressional approval when Libya didn't pose a threat to the United States. And there's a big difference between threatening the United States and threatening U.S. "interests": Any country that opposes free trade and corporate domination may be said to threaten U.S. interests, at least the way the power elite defines them. So now future Presidents can cite the Libya intervention as precedent for bombing, say, Venezuela.
For their part, the allies violated the U.N. Security Council resolutions on Libya by providing huge amounts of weapons to the rebels when those resolutions had imposed an arms embargo on all parties.
What's more, the CIA trained the rebel forces and guided their assaults.
And the rationale that Obama used, late in the game, for not abiding by the War Powers Act was a classic: The Administration said that because Libya's air defenses were wiped out, U.S. pilots were no longer in harm's way, so Congress need not worry about it.
You can call this the Obama Doctrine if you want, but it amounts to this: The President can go bomb any country it wants so long as that country doesn't have air defenses, or the President can destroy a country's air defenses and continue to wage war against that country--all without bothering to get approval from Congress.
This is but a recipe for more international gangsterism in the years ahead.
With Qaddafi on the run, we're now hearing about Libya being a model for future U.S. interventions.
The New York Times today reports that Administration officials say the Libyan intervention "may, in some important ways, become a model for how the United States wields force in other countries where its interests are threatened."
I should hope not.
Because what the United States and its European allies did was "international gangsterism," as Dennis Kucinich so colorfully put it the other day.
Obama violated the Constitution and the War Powers Act by bombing Libya without Congressional approval when Libya didn't pose a threat to the United States. And there's a big difference between threatening the United States and threatening U.S. "interests": Any country that opposes free trade and corporate domination may be said to threaten U.S. interests, at least the way the power elite defines them. So now future Presidents can cite the Libya intervention as precedent for bombing, say, Venezuela.
For their part, the allies violated the U.N. Security Council resolutions on Libya by providing huge amounts of weapons to the rebels when those resolutions had imposed an arms embargo on all parties.
What's more, the CIA trained the rebel forces and guided their assaults.
And the rationale that Obama used, late in the game, for not abiding by the War Powers Act was a classic: The Administration said that because Libya's air defenses were wiped out, U.S. pilots were no longer in harm's way, so Congress need not worry about it.
You can call this the Obama Doctrine if you want, but it amounts to this: The President can go bomb any country it wants so long as that country doesn't have air defenses, or the President can destroy a country's air defenses and continue to wage war against that country--all without bothering to get approval from Congress.
This is but a recipe for more international gangsterism in the years ahead.