 |
| Rep Sen Lugar |
On 3/24 Senator Lugar was calling for Sen Kerry to hold hearings on the Libyan war immediately. Senator Lugar was disturbed that we have not goals and end plans clear....emphasis on the 'we' being Obama. He spoke as though it was totally a US action mentioning, early on in his comments, nothing about the UN Security Council or coalition. How statements are made, with omissions as factors certainly can skew a picture badly. With some validity he referred to our lack of knowledge about who or what the forces are that would replace Gaddafi, intimating a sense of 'the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know'. Meanwhile he admitted to having had a telephone call with Obama who had laid out answers. Senator Lugar seems not to have heard them, or perhaps it was that they did not change his preconceived notions for which he wants to hold hearings (probably with people who do not have the answers either).. He remains convinced we should not be involved with the Libyan Civil War. We can all be grateful that Lafayette did not feel the same during the American Revolution.
People look for answers that don't exist yet about the future. Random variables being as unpredictable as they are, the consequence of many actions can not be anticipated. A valid point Sen Lugar raised is that nothing has been said about where the money will come from to pay for our participation.
7 comments:
Well, you have certainly had a real change of heart on this issue since your March 12th post (http://ewelts.blogspot.com/2011/03/libya-not-our-war.html). Out of curiosity, what changed your mind?
Sen. Lugar may be wrong about a lot of things, but his request for Senate hearings on the Libyan action is eminently reasonable. In fact, the constitution specifies that the power to declare war resides with congress. If anything, we should have had these hearings before the tomahawk missile was launched. See my post http://fatherbrain.blogspot.com/2011/03/when-will-we-see-war-declared-right-way_22.html
In theory, some of what Lugar asks is reasonable....if time would have permitted. I am missing how my position has really changed so much.
You were adamantly opposed to military intervention in your March 12 blog post. You referred to the Republicans who supported setting up a no-fly zone as "jocks" who clearly "do not march to the Star Spangled Banner" and "do not believe in helping God to bless America". You praise Obama for not making the mistake of risking another 6000 military deaths in a fight with Libya. In the comments section, you came out against even considering a no-fly zone.
Two weeks later, you're taking a much more positive stance on military intervention. Where you once found it outrageous that Republicans wanted us to be involved in a Libyan civil war, you now find it outrageous that Sen. Lugar does not want to be involved! To be fair, you did acknowledge that the Senator shares your concern about the cost of this project.
As I pointed out in my mot recent post, what concerns me most about this Libyan military action is that we have further watered down the constitutional protocol for declaring war. Obama was largely elected as a peace candidate, but ironically his most lasting legacy may be creating the precedent that a President can unilaterally declare our nation at war.
You are correct...I was ignorant of the facts, ie that we would not be going it alone, that none of our troops were being committed on the ground,and that we are truly not declaring war but as Lafayette assisted us in our revolution, offering assistance. My bad.
Even with these fact, this still represents a major change of heart. Yes, we did not "go it alone" into Libya, but we did not go it alone into Iraq or Afghanistan either. Even an air strike operation places demands on our forces; before the no-fly zone was created, 2300 marines were sent to Tripoli. This is ill-advised at a time when our forces are perilously over-extended. Even worse, in Obama's Monday address (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/03/28/Transcript-of-Obama-speech-on-Libya/UPI-45771301359661) he makes the case for Libyan nation building, something that will require "boots on the ground" and more money than we could possibly afford.
Our "kinetic military action" started with a massive missile attack on Libyan defense assets. This is generally (and rightly) regarded as an act of war. We do not have an official declaration of war, or even congressional approval. That may be the worst aspect of this action: Obama may have permanently lowered the bar for entering this nation into war.
Please consider this comparison between Obama's Monday address and a previous call to war:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp8aEIPKC60
I believe you misheard Obama. He said there will be NO boots on the ground. It has been mis-states and corrected many times in the past few days.
I know that Obama said there are "no boots on the ground", but while that statement is technically correct, it is highly misleading. Check out this AP story:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/politics/congress/2011/03/giving-gadhafi-boot-us-says-no-boots-involve
Between 2200 and 2300 marines were dispatched to Tripoli at the start of this military operation, and an untold number of CIA covert Ops. forces have been on the ground for weeks. The White House can say that there are "no boots on the ground" because the marines are "boots on ships" and the CIA paramilitary officers are not counted as "boots".
Semantics aside, this operation is unarguably an act of war that should have had congressional approval according to the constitution. This offensive comes at a time when our forces are already stretched thin fighting two other wars. Moreover, given the current debt crisis, and that we're borrowing to pay for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, can we even afford another war? Financial responsibility requires that this action be paid for with cuts in other programs. Which programs would you cut to pay for our fighting in Libya?
Post a Comment