Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Kerry, McCain Come to Obama’s Rescue Over Libya

In the face of growing congressional criticism over the legal basis for the Libyan War, Barack Obama received a lifeline from two Senate allies: John Kerry and John McCain.

Inter Press Service

Hoping to head off growing insurgencies in both major parties over Washington’s participation in NATO’s military campaign against Libya, two key senators Tuesday unveiled a resolution that would give President Barack Obama the authority to continue operations there for up to one year.

Democratic Senator John Kerry, who also serves as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Republican Senator John McCain, the party’s 2008 presidential candidate, said their measure would authorise "the limited use of the United States Armed Forces in Libya, in support of United States national security policy interests."

The resolution was cosponsored by several senior senators from each party, notably Majority Whip Dick Durbin and the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, as well as several prominent Republican hawks, including Lindsey Graham and John Kyl.

The White House said it welcomed the resolution. "[W]e support that and would welcome passage of it by the Senate, and, if it were taken up in the House [of Representatives], by the House as well," said Obama’s chief spokesman, Jay Carney.

The resolution – the product of weeks of negotiations – comes amid growing controversy within both parties about Washington’s continued involvement in three ongoing wars.

That controversy was further fuelled last week by the Obama administration’s much-disputed contention that U.S. military operations were not significant enough to require Congressional authorisation under the 1973 War Powers Resolution.

It also comes on the eve of a much-anticipated announcement on the timing and pace of Washington’s withdrawal of combat forces from Afghanistan – which Obama promised would begin next month.

That decision, which Obama is expected to announce in a nationally televised speech Wednesday evening, has also provoked growing controversy within both parties.

Democrats, who were never enthusiastic about Obama’s decision to substantially increase U.S. forces in Afghanistan, generally favour an accelerated withdrawal of the 100,000 U.S. troops currently deployed there. Republicans are increasingly split between hawks – such as McCain, Graham, and Kyl – who are urging a slow drawdown, and a fast-growing coalition of ‘realists’, fiscal conservatives, and ‘isolationists’ in the party’s Congressional caucus, who are increasingly allying themselves with their colleagues across the aisle on both Afghanistan and Libya.

The latter forces are particularly strong in the House, which could take up several proposed resolutions this week that – if enacted – would limit the president’s ability to use appropriated funds to continue the military operations in or over Libya. Those operations, which are estimated to cost about 10 million dollars a day, consist mainly of aerial surveillance, refuelling costs, and logistical support, but also include drone strikes and occasional piloted aircraft strikes.

One resolution, co-sponsored by anti-war Democrat Dennis Kucinich and Republican Walter Jones, would cut off all funding for Libya operations. Earlier this month, another measure sponsored by the two lawmakers would have cut all funding after 15 days unless Obama received Congressional authorisation to continue operations. Despite strong Republican backing, it was defeated 148-265, but only because the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, offered a substitute resolution reproaching Obama for not seeking Congressional authorisation under the War Powers Resolution, that passed easily with bipartisan support.

The Kerry-McCain measure is clearly designed to settle the War Powers issue and thus stave off additional legislative challenges to the Libya operation at a time when war fatigue appears to be growing rapidly in Congress and within the public at large, most notably among Republicans.

Originally approved by Congress over President Richard Nixon’s veto, the War Powers Resolution was designed to end the decade-long U.S. military intervention in Vietnam and establish curbs on the executive branch’s ability to engage U.S. forces in conflicts abroad without seeking Congressional authorisation or a declaration of war.

The act requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. forces into imminent or ongoing "hostilities". It also requires him to end operations within 60 to 90 days unless Congress gives him the authority to continue, or extends the deadline. In the Libya case, the 90-day period ended Sunday.

Until now, every president, beginning with Nixon himself, has argued that the act is unconstitutional because it infringes on the president’s authority as ‘Commander-in-Chief’. At the same time, however, they have respected the law’s notification requirements. The courts, where conflicts between the legislative and executive branches are supposed to be resolved, have consistently avoided ruling on the constitutional question.

Obama has also ducked the constitutional issue, contending instead, as he did in a 38-page report submitted to Congress last week, that the resolution did not apply because Washington’s intervention in Libya does "not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops".

That argument, however, convinced almost nobody, and may indeed have backfired against the president.

"It just doesn’t pass the straight-face test… that we’re not in the midst of hostilities," Boehner, who has supported the Libya campaign, said after the report was submitted, while Durbin, the number two Democrat in the Senate and one of Obama’s closest allies in Congress, felt compelled to part ways with the president.

Obama’s position was further weakened by the disclosure in the ‘New York Times’ that both the normally authoritative Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department and the Pentagon’s top lawyers also disagreed with the report’s contentions.

As the controversy intensified over the following days, it appears that Kerry and McCain, who had been trying to draft a resolution that could gain overwhelming support in both houses of Congress since shortly after the Libya campaign began three months ago, renewed their efforts.

"The Senate has been silent for too long on U.S. military operations in Libya," McCain said Tuesday. "It is time for the Senate to act. It is time to authorise the President’s use of force, whether he thinks he needs it or not."

The resolution authorises the deployment of U.S. armed forces "as part of the NATO mission to enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973", which authorises "all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack" in Libya for up to one year.

That is "more than enough time to finish the job," McCain told reporters. The resolution noted that Washington’s goal is to "achieve the departure from power of Muammar Qaddafi and his family", although it did not explicitly authorise the use of military power to accomplish that end.

The resolution also states that the Congress opposes the deployment of ground troops in Libya "unless the purpose of the presence is limited to the immediate personal defense of United States Government officials or to rescuing members of NATO forces from imminent danger".

The resolution is almost certain to enjoy strong support in the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid suggested that it would be put on a fast track. The House, however, could be more problematic. While the number two Democrat there, Representative Steny Hoyer, said he would support the resolution, Boehner and other members of the Republican leadership were non-committal Tuesday.

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and a contributor to Right Web (https://rightweb.irc-online.org).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Haim Saban is a media mogul and major donor to the Democratic Party known for his hardline stance on Israel and opposition to the Iran nuclear deal.


Nikki Haley, Donald Trump’s first U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and is widely considered to be a future presidential candidate.


Brian Hook is the director of policy planning and senior policy advisor to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and is the head of the Iran Action Group.


Josh Rogin is a journalist known for his support for neoconservative policies and views.


Laurence Silberman, a senior justice on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, was a mentor to controversial Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and has been a vocal supporter of right-wing foreign and domestic agendas, including the campaign to support the invasion of Iraq.


The People’s Mujahedin of Iran, or MEK, advocates regime change in Iran and has strong connections with a wide range of top political figures in the U.S.


Eli Lake is a columnist for Bloomberg View who has a lengthy record of advocating for aggressive U.S. foreign policies towards the Middle East.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Jobs should not be an excuse to arm a murderous regime that not only appears to be behind the assassination of a U.S. resident and respected commentator but is also responsible for thousands of civilian casualties in Yemen—the majority killed with U.S-supplied bombs, combat aircraft, and tactical assistance.


The contradictions in Donald Trump’s foreign policy create opportunities for both rivals and long-standing (if irritated) US allies to challenge American influence. But Trump’s immediate priority is political survival, and his actions in the international arena are of little concern to his domestic supporters.


While the notion that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic is decades old, it has been bolstered in recent years, by the campaign to add to the definition of anti-Semitism any criticism that singles Israel out and doesn’t apply the same standard to other countries. The bottom line is that this entire effort is designed not to combat anti-Semitism but to silence criticism. 


Short-term thinking, expedience, and a lack of strategic caution has led Washington to train, fund, and support group after group that have turned their guns on American soldiers and civilians.


Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps — or someone worse — to come.


The United Nations has once again turn into a battleground between the United States and Iran, which are experiencing one of the darkest moments in their bilateral relations.


In many ways, Donald Trump’s bellicosity, his militarism, his hectoring cant about American exceptionalism and national greatness, his bullying of allies—all of it makes him not an opponent of neoconservatism but its apotheosis. Trump is a logical culmination of the Bush era as consolidated by Obama.


RightWeb
share