printIn urging a no-fly zone over Libya (link), the neoconservatives wanted more than anything to see the US take the lead, once again, in democratic, faith-based initiatives around the world.
Neoconservatives like Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer (joined by eager pup Steven Hayes of the Weekly Standard) were champing at the bit to take the battle for Libya away from the Libyan people and put it where it belongs: the US military. Today, Obama threw America’s heft (such as it is these days) behind a U.N. Security Council no-fly zone over Libya. What this move lacks in glory, from the neocons’ position, it makes up for in the potential for blood, guts and gore. Except that the US—again, from where the neocons are perched—will take a strategic backseat to the UN:
The resolution passed 10-0 with five abstentions, including Russia and China.
The resolution establishes “a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya” while excluding an occupation force. It also calls for freezing the assets of the Libyan National Oil Corp. and the central bank because of links to Gadhafi.
[MSNBC]
Joining in this UN resolution means, in effect, that American funding and firepower will be channeled into one more futile expedition over a Muslim country. Neocons will act disappointed, having been denied leadership position in the expedition. But to all intents and purposes, the US (via our debtholders) will be left to carry the can.
“the US (via our debtholders) will be left to carry the can.”
Barry or Bush … It’s business as usual
Article 1 Section 8 allows the United States to initiate war (1) to provide for the common Defense and (2) with a declaration of War passed by the Congress, not the UN. That Usurper Dictator Obama (following Usurper Dictator Bush) might send troops to war shows the utter contempt that America’s rulers have for the Supreme Law of the Land. They also intend to use the militias of the several states which may only be used to repel invasion and suppress rebellion (which does not refer to Khadaffi crushing his own rebels!).
Additionally, intervention is stupid since these rebels haven’t been able to get sufficient mass support to even sustain a rebellion. Getting 10 votes at the UN is more important to these rebels than establishing domestic support. As odious as communists were, they were able to hide out in mountains of Yugoslavia or caves in South Vietnam for years against formidable conventional forces. Apparently, the US will concoct some “coalition” of international busybodies to impose some Kharzai/Diem/Malaki on the Libyans. After the usual ineptitude and corruption followed by a few “oops” when “smart weapons” kill 9 year old kids, America will have more insurgencies to fight and bleed over.
I must agree with Myron. I am distressed everyone is acting as if intervention is a done deal by dint of the UN.
If Congress does vote to intervene, at least do it on condition that the entire bill is footed by those nations requesting such force. Uncle Sam is too poor to be paying for another intervention.
Derek – you hit upon the fact that ALL TAXES raised under Article 1 Section 8 are for the Common Defense and General Welfare of the United States and therefore the government lacks any authority to intervene for solely humanitarian or ideological purposes.
But if Oman or the UAE or Morocco wish to hire Blackwater, let them do so directly and leave the US Government out of it.
Anybody who regularly visits BAB knows, from my assorted rants, I have no problem with the US going where it wants and doing what it wants if the action is to our national advantage. Detractors, foreign and domestic, can shove it. BUT, the fools running this country, and I include most of the voters, not only don’t know when this projection of force is appropriate they don’t know to do it. I don’t know what we should do about Libya but I guarantee military action led by our Little Bo Peep of a president is probably not the answer. As Fred Sanford once said: “Tell me when and tell me where. I already know how.” Alas the Bamster is no Fred Sanford.
These United States have no legal or moral “national advantage” to action for outside of those purposes specified in the Constitution. A history of usurpation doesn’t change that fact; neither does any one individual’s lust for nationalistic enterprise.
I suspect it was a preponderance of useful idiots such as Mr. Huggins who facilitated the “actions” of Lincoln’s leviathan state as they pursued their monstrous “national advantage” against the southern states. Shove it indeed.
[Huggs is a discerning reader; he’s been mine for going on a decade. One of his funniest quips when he began to come around about the war in Iraq: “I’d rather encounter the Revolutionary Guard than Mercer.” Or something.]
…one cannot adequately compensate for a diminished intellect, morality, nor manhood with a blustering nationalistic bloodlust…
I’m sure “Huggs” is real teddy bear. In the meantime, I don’t want my beloved Son to expend his precious life for the “national advantage” crowd – like this lovable, misguided jerk.
[He’s improving.]
Frankly, I think that Obama’s decision to push for a unilateral movement for a no-fly zone was probably the best call. I’m angry it took so long & that the Arab League was one of the biggest foot-draggers. The USN & Egypt are in the best position to clear out Ghaddafi’s air & armor. Also, Israel, btw. Let’s be honest, the IAF is one of the top air forces in the world at this game & probably has the fastest mission turn-around anywhwere. They also have a couple good reasons to WANT to assist. First, it’s good politics–making a few more friends in the region can’t hurt. Second, it’s the right thing to do.
Also, the Uk & France DO have quite sufficient air power & more directly vested interests in Libya then the US. It would be better if they took the throttle here, along with the Arab League (and, in my fantasies, the IAF). Better that the US lend logistics support to this operation if at all possible.
Here it is:
I am somewhat fascinated with the Huggins’ phrase “no problem with the US going where it wants and doing what it wants if the action is to our national advantage.”
Comments:
(1) Barack Obama is the President but he is not “the United States”. In the field of deciding on war, Congress is “the United States” – and certainly NOT
the United Nations or the Arab League.
(2) In terms of collective action, the US is only allowed to act for the common defense. That is not to stop a citizen from volunteering to fight overseas for cause or for pay (assuming there are not violation of American laws or fighting against America). William Kristol can pick up an Ak-47 and head over to Benghazi. However, the US as a collective “we” has no authority to fight for a foreign cause.
(3) As for “national advantage” – most wars have been to our considerable DISADVANTAGE although actually taking over Saudi Arabia might be profitable.
(4) If the (Lockean-Jeffersonian) purpose of government is to SECURE OUR RIGHTS, it is very difficult to find any justification for most wars of recent times (apprehending “9/11 enemies” ish’t a blank check)
All that said, I am not & will likely never be a fan of the UN. Until last week, I believe. Libya sat on the Human Rights Committee. The UN is dominated by The Tyranny of the Majority. Thomas Paine warned us about this (using Bucks County, PA as an example, no less) a couple hundred years ago. He was right.
I listened to the Michael Medved show yesterday and he was upset that the UN is going to lead the way on the no fly zone. He says that without US leadership this could lead into World War III. Typical neo-con language.