I’m not a foreign policy expert, so perhaps I’m missing something, but a quick glance at the Constitution reveals that Congress has the power to declare war, as specified in Article I, Section VIII. Nobody else has that power, not even the President.
Notwithstanding this clear language, the United States may (or may not, depending on Obama’s mood) participate in military action against Libya merely because of a resolution at the United Nations.
This is rather troubling in the short run because it risks another messy entanglement in the Middle East – and it blatantly disregards the procedure created by our Founding Fathers for making such choices.
But it is equally troubling in the long run because it implicitly restricts the ability of the United States to unilaterally act if there is a time when America’s national security is genuinely threatened.
If we attack Libya because of a resolution from the U.N. Security Council, does that mean we can’t attack some terrorist stronghold in the future if we don’t get a resolution from the U.N.? Don’t kid yourself, the international bureaucrats and their multilateralist sympathizers all around the world think the answer to that question is yes, and they are delighted that the United States is acting in ways that strengthen their position.
S*U*P*E*R*B Post! Simply excellent. It is extremely dangerous for global freedom and prosperity to let the USA be ruled by a megalomaniacal opressive bureaucracy like United Nations.
Imagine…. This is being touted as, “endless rounds of diplomacy”…http://bit.ly/e7ha7k
But instead, appears to be coordinated plans for countries; irrespective to their citizens. http://bloom.bg/fFzmfL
For now, there may not seem to be a way to seek redress; or recourse to protect our US Constitution from the growing menace that threatens it….
But 2012 will need to be ENTIRELY decisive…
Wars always bring deep concerns among the contenders. More for some less for others. Remember that wars are less concerned when developed in the other’s territory. Require efforts rather than efforts reap life but open a positive outlook for the economy. The U.S. has not declared war on anyone. Therefore enjoys a comfortable position. Who said the intervention was that the UN and has the participation of other countries also counts with the U.S.. The Congress in turn, only ratifies a UN resolution and gives his answer through your President. The future developments of these conflicts may strengthen the view that terrorist intentions. However the U.S. being prepared for this possibility, what is left is a dresser political and economic situation in conflict areas that calculatedly align policies already planned by the U.S. for the region and its interests in the short, medium and long term.
Let’s also consider how the UN and our liberal foreign policy establishment will now view future resolutions. They will both argue that the UNSC has the lead in determining international military action. They will further argue that the US has now set a precedent for following the UN’s lead (like an obedient little child) and will defer to the world body regardless of congressional authorization or not.
Sometime very soon, we will see a UNSC resolution demanding the use of force to dispel Israeli “occupiers” from the West Bank and Golan Heights. Obama will then be under tremendous pressure to comply. I’m not saying he will, but there are plenty of left-wing Democrats on the Hill and in his administration who will be all for it.