SFRC hearing "Assessing the Situation in Libya" 2 pm today

[Luftmensch067]

Not to be petty, but this is what CSPAN says on their website they're covering in terms of Congressional hearings on Libya today:

* House Armed Services Committee Hearing: Live at 9am (ET) on C-SPAN Networks
* House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing: Live at 10am (ET) on C-SPAN Networks
* Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing: Live at 2:15pm (ET) on C-SPAN Networks

It's sure hard not to be paranoid about a bias against JK and his SFRC sometimes! I can't prove it, but it definitely seemed like they showed SFRC hearings a LOT more before he became Chairman. Anyway, thank goodness we have the SFRC website video.

[karynnj]

1. The surprising thing is that it is not on the "we are also following" list

CSPAN 1 and 2 have to cover the House and the Senate. That leaves just CSPAN3. With the two Senate hearings at the same time, they could only show one live. The Senate Armed Services, includes Levin, who is trying to put together a resolution, and media favorites, Leiberman and McCain are there. (I will be interested in Senator Reed's position ) MA people may see their junior Senator, likely speaking of his 30 years in the military.

But, I am surprised that they are not at least taping the SFRC because Lugar and Kerry really are the best you can get on foreign policy and especially as their position clearly differ, there will be an interesting, civil exploration of the issues involved. Of the Senators in the 4 hearings, I think only Kerry has been in the Middle East over the break.

As to the mainstream broadcast media, they will cover whatever parts of whatever committee get most over the top and contentious. In this case, it is better it NOT be the SFRC. (Consider that I think Kucinich has gotten more coverage in the last few weeks than he did when he was running for President in either 2004 or 2008. ) The better print media has already been setting up the SFRC as a rift between Kerry and Lugar - those I doubt any fight would be "good TV" given the civility of both.

[beachmom]

2. I guess it will be up to the ranking member of the committee to address

such a flagrant disregard for the rule of law and the power of Congress:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/03/the-imperial-president-ctd.html

I don't plan to listen to this hearing. I am so disgusted. We weren't even asked if we wanted to participate in a civil war in yet another Muslim country. No ground troops. No regime change. Yeah, right.

Oh, and remember Bush at least had a vote. One that left Kerry stricken with guilt for years. Now Congress will not have a vote nor seek any sense of accountability for this disastrous policy.

[karynnj]

3. I haven't watched the hearing yet because I was not home, but here

are Kerry's opening comments, where he skirts giving an opinion on needing a vote now. He does point out a long list of places where no authorization was obtained beforehand. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2011/03/kerry_offers_st.html

I really don't see how, given the time line, they could have gotten a vote.

Although many are citing Sherman's interpretation of what Clinton said, I have not seen any other primary source saying that they do not have to follow the War Powers Act. The fact that they DID do the first step of the War Powers Act - informing Congress in 48 hours, I will wait until I hear in open court a comment made by Clinton or a high level deputy saying that they do not feel bound by the War Powers Act. That no one seems to have corrected is the only thing that makes it more likely - but in the midst of everything it could be no one thought to address it.

I am listening to the Arms Service's hearing (and will watch SFRC later) - there was just a LONG discussion where Levin spoke of the timing. Gaddafi attacks were imminent and the decision was made on Thursday and the Senate was leaving for recess. Gates mentioned the resolution sponsored by Menendez, that passed unanimously. Collins said the language was weak - and if wasn't she would not have voted for it. As it specifically said the UN should possibly implement a no fly zone, she and all other Senators really are in the position Kerry was on the stronger IWR. One difference is that it was not a binding resolution passed in both Houses. The question is why didn't Lugar or Collins etc object to this being unanimous?

The important point is that Gates - at least at the point I started watching argued that they did consult and the March 1 vote was mentioned. He was NOT saying the Congress had no say - that they were not consulting - or that they would not follow the War Powers Act.

[beachmom]

4. Wow, that is the lamest defense ever.

"Everyone else did it".

Again, there was no meaningful consultation. The public was absolutely not consulted.

Karen -- REALLY?

I really don't see how, given the time line, they could have gotten a vote.

You're completely buying into the Administration's line that this was some kind of emergency. I am sorry but it was not an emergency. This wasn't bloody Rwanda. It is a civil war, for which there are many across the globe. Kerry is shilling for the Administration here -- apparently he agrees with them and has decided he wants war even when it is absolutely unnecessary and as long as HE is involved in the matter to hell with the rest of Congress or the public.

I have read that some Republicans in the House balked during the House hearings. I'm sorry but they have zero credibility on the matter given their disgraceful behavior during the Bush years. Basically, there is nobody any good in Congress. Both parties are TERRIBLE. I'm just downright depressed about all of this. Everything I thought I knew about Democrats has been proven wrong -- they love war just like Bush/Cheney -- it's only how they go about it & for what reasons that is different. WAR IS WAR. I'm against it unless we HAVE to do it. This was clearly not the case. Now we find Obama has lied about his intentions (his speech was a lie -- they clearly want regime change and have sent in Special Forces and CIA inland so this is not some simple bombing campaign from the sky).

Please someone here admit: WE WERE NOT ASKED. Nobody asked US, the electorate, if we felt this was a good idea. No vote in Congress. No debate.

[karynnj]

6. Watching the hearing now - Kerry says they are drafting a resolution now

I do believe Kerry and everyone else when they spoke of the fact that Gaddafi was outside Benghazi and it was Gadaffi's words that he would go house to house etc. It was to avoid that. The fact is that we will never know how many - if any - would have been killed. A massacre may have been avoided, but only had it occured would you know it was a massacre.

There was the March 1 resolution that Collins spoke of agreeing to - as all Senators did.

Lugar is making a strong case for going to war only when it is in the US vital interests - and Congressional authorization is important in that. He spoke of having called on Obama on March 7 to go for a vote to go to war. Obama did not do that.

He references Iraq and Afghanistan - he mentioned flaws then - but calls this an historical setback. Says it will be a precedent.

Kerry said they will have another Libya hearing with outside witnesses next week.

In his first round of questions, he asked Steinberg if at the end of 60 days US forces are likely to be in hostilities - saying he was reading from the War Powers Act. He then spoke of working on a resolution. (Steinberg's answer was vague that they would keep the committee informed. - He did not blow off the WPA as Sherman's comment from the other day suggests.)

Lugar wants a comprehensive plan, with budget, pay for war and the peace, and what outcome is success - mentions civil war, suggest some of rebels fought us in Iraq.

[karynnj]

8. Durbin asked a series of questions on the war powers act

Steinberg says that he would welcome a Congressional resolution. Asked if the duration might be so short that Congress could not write, debate and vote on a resolution - answer was essentially that they can't forecast time. Steinberg spoke of the US blocking Libyan funds - held in trust for the a future Democratic government. (Kerry asked if it could pay for the allied intervention - Steinberg says it is on the table.)

[wisteria]

7. Since when is the electorate consulted about military actions?

And, in what conflict of a similar nature did we have a vote?
I am not of the idea that this is a war, and I trust that our President knows a lot more than I and a lot of other pundits do about what is going on behind the scenes,I trust that he did not take this action carelessly and without consulting the proper people. I am of the mind that the American people do not always make the wisest choices and are many time misinformed or not informed at all. I believe it is wiser to place decisions such as this one on the shoulders of others who are closer to the situation.

[karynnj]

9. When is the electorate consulted - when they vote - as we did mostly on war in 2006 and 2008

There is a valid question to be asked whether:

a) Obama needed prior authorization. Clearly Beachmom and Senator Lugar both have expressed solid reasons why this was needed.

Given that he did not have that,

b) should he get authority now? Will the action be so short that Congress would not yet have voted? Both Kerry and Durbin raised this issue .

What are the rules they should follow because the war powers act. Again Kerry and Durbin raised this issue - and contrary to ONE Congressman's comment, it did Steinberg's answers were not like Sherman described Clinton's. (So Steinberg's boss might be more unitary President like or there might have been some inadvertent confusion on Sherman's part.)

From looking at google results, because I know nothing about Sherman, he seems to have gone beyond the facts in the past and been pretty extreme.

Wants American on the flotilla to help Gaza prosecuted:
http://www.lobelog.com/rep-sherman-prosecute-u-s-citizens-involved-with-gaza-flotilla/

Iran -
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/114613-rep-sherman-wants-to-help-ahmadinejad-punish-innocent-iranians

TARP -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaG9d_4zij8
and
and here on a pretty radical show
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bH1mO8qhCs

(Take this with a grain of salt, but these are the first several independent links I found - leaving none out.)

Wikipedia says that he backtracted on his "martial law" comment - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Sherman

Now as I said I know nothing about him - but what I did see makes me want to question why so many on the left have taken his word - speaking of what was said in a closed meeting - at face value. No one else seems to have supported his comment - and the SFRC discussion was on similar enough concerns, it would likely have been mentioned by someone.

[wisteria]

10. I understand that, and Obama is doing just exactly what he said he would do when he was

running for President. You can not lump all conflicts together even though the threads may be similar. I was playing with the suggestion that we are consulted when decisions like this are made as are Congress at the time.
The suggestion of prior authorization depends on how you define this conflict. Those who lump this situation in with Iraq and Afghanistan see it as a war. People like me, on the other side of this, see this as more of a helping hand and a humanitarian matter-not war, so the need for prior authorization is a mute point.
I come here offering another point of view, I don't consider my POV incorrect nor set in stone either,but I would appreciate some consideration even though it does not mesh with the opinion you or Beachmom share. I didn't like this entire movement of change in the Middle East in the beginning, but it is moving along, and it offers positive historical changes for the future of America and the Middle East. I disagreed with Senator Kerry at first,but I think I now understand what he has been saying, and understand what we need to do. I suppose if you believe in the cause, then the idea of fighting over prior authorization seems irrelevant and a bit of a waste of time.

[karynnj]

12. I am closer to your view than I am to Beachmom's

On the war, I do see that Kerry and others obviously were concerned that an uprising that they praised could lead to many young people protesting being slaughtered. I don't think that that reason was fake.

Where you I MAY differ is that I was and am concerned with the shift towards an imperial President that started under Bush. I do buy the argument that the timing precluded writing a resolution, debating it and voting in both Houses before the attack, It seems like Obama did not have time from the point where he was convinced we should attack. (There is no way it would have made sense to do this when it was still pretty likely that Obama would not join this.)

Also, at this point, I do not believe the Sullivan/Greenwald et al Brad Sherman story. Many Congressmen had briefings and he alone is speaking of this - and the answers of Steinberg, Gates and Mullen do not seem to support it.

[wisteria]

15. It was certainly spoken about, but the final decision only can when it looked likely that Quaddafi

would slaughter all those people. Maybe Obama waited to long to make the decision and then had to make a quick one.

The comment below from Sen. Kerry today don't mention Obama's decision directly, but it does seem to suggest that doing what Obama has done has been done this way in certain circumstances for three decades.

"I understand that some of my colleagues have concerns about whether there has been sufficient consultation with Congress. There is an important constitutional question here, but it is not a new question. The truth is, presidents — both Democratic and Republican — have authorized limited military action in the last three decades without congressional authorization in Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, and Kosovo."



http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2011/03/kerry_offers_st.html

[ProSense]

11. I don't agree with Lugar.

He and some other members of Congress are trying to give the impression that this action caught them off guard. Not everyone agrees. USA Today:

<...>

Unlike some lawmakers who have complained that Obama did not properly inform Congress that the United States would launch airstrikes, McConnell noted that the president gave two notifications to Capitol Hill -- one in writing and one in a briefing.

<...>

Senator Lugar (today):

<...>

President Obama’s intervention in Libya represents a serious setback to the Constitutional limits on the President’s war powers. Historians will point out that this is not the first time that a President has gone to war on his own authority. But the Libya case is the one most likely to be cited the next time President Obama or a future President chooses to take the country to war without Congressional approval. That future war may have far graver consequences for American national security than the war in Libya.

With or without a debate in the Congress, the United States is involved in a military intervention in a third Middle Eastern country. This is a jarring prospect, given the enormous U.S. budget deficit, the strains on our military from long deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the certainty that this won’t be the last contingency in the Middle East to impact our interests. In fact, even as the coalition drops bombs in Libya, the Syrian regime has been shooting citizens in an attempt to repress peaceful protests. Our commitments in Libya and those of our allies leave less military, diplomatic, and economic capacity for responding to other contingencies. We need to know, for example, whether the Libyan intervention will make it even harder to sustain allied commitments to operations in Afghanistan.

The President clearly was motivated by humanitarian concerns about what could happen if Qadhafi’s forces were left unchecked. But as many have observed, there is no end to the global humanitarian emergencies to which U.S. military and economic power might be devoted. The question now is when is that humanitarian mission accomplished, and has humanitarianism evolved into supporting one side in a lengthy civil war.

In his March 28th speech, the President expressed hopefulness that our intervention in Libya would have a positive effect on democratic movements and regime behavior elsewhere in the Middle East. Perhaps it will, but the President is guessing. Nowhere in the world have we had more experience with unintended consequences than in the Middle East. A war rationale based on hopes about how U.S. military intervention will be perceived in the Middle East is deficient on its face. It is also uncertain whether pro-Western governments can result from popular upheaval, especially in Libya where we know little about the opposition. We also don’t know what this will mean for our efforts to stop terrorism and defeat al-Qaeda, particularly since Middle Eastern governments that are helping us with this problem are among those who are repressing their people.

<...>

While stating that he understands the humanitarian aspect, Lugar is trying to claim that this action by President Obama will set a precedent, ignoring all the other acts that came before it (Truman/Korea, Reagan/Grenada, Bush Sr/Iraq).

February 23: Remarks by the President on Libya

February 25: Letter from the President Regarding Libya Sanctions

March 1: SENATE RESOLUTION 85--STRONGLY CONDEMNING THE GROSS AND SYSTEMATIC VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN LIBYA, INCLUDING VIOLENT ATTACKS ON PROTESTERS DEMANDING DEMOCRATIC REFORMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES (PDF)

<...>

(7) urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory;

<...>

President Obama acted under the U.N. Charter and fulfilled the War Powers Act requirements: Consulted with Congress, notified Congress within 48 hours and now has 60 days to submit a report.

It's puzzling that any member of Congress is trying to make the argument that the President violated the War Powers Act, and they certainly weren't caught off guard.

Member of Congress are right to debate the action and conduct hearings. Their job is oversight. The President must still issue a report in accordance with the WPA. Congress will decide the appropriate course of action in terms of authorization.

The mission, which shouldn't be a protracted one, is now being commanded by NATO with the U.S. in a supporting role as the President defined.

[karynnj]

13. There is one reason that Lugar's claim has some merit

That is because the two most recent wars did have authorizations. Iraq did only because liberals, including Kerry, insisted that Bush could not use the terrorism authorization (and pushed him to go to the UN).

Those could have been used as precedents to insure that all future attacks had authorization. Now, a future President could point to the most recent attack and say it didn't have authorization.

[ProSense]

14. Here's the problem

with Iraq. The authorization was given under the false claim that Iraq had WMD, and it specifically stated that all diplomatic routes should be exhausted and justification for any attack be submitted to Congress. Subsequently, Bush failed to comply with the U.N. resolution and then falsified the evidence in his report. to Congress.

"Those could have been used as precedents to insure that all future attacks had authorization. Now, a future President could point to the most recent attack and say it didn't have authorization."

But the WPA doesn't rquire authorization before hand, it requires consulting Congress before hand and notifying Congress within 48 hours of any action.

The issue some have raised in imminent threat, which was bogusly used as the justification for Iraq (the U.N. did not sanction the Iraq war).

The justification here isn't that Libya is an imminent threat warranting unilateral action, but a humanitarian effort sanctioned by the U.N.

The two aren't the same. No one can use this action to justify a unilateral invasion of another country. It could be used to justify acting in concert with the U.N., and the President still complied with the requirements of the WPA.

[beachmom]

18. Here's the problem with Libya: mission creep.

It started out as protecting civilians and now it is going further. There is debate on whether to arm the rebels. That is not what the U.N. resolution said.

Also, I feel like all of you are all just fine with using our military all over the place for reasons other than national security. That is not my view at all. I am neither a neoconservative nor a liberal hawk. Will you all now admit to being humanitarian liberal hawks? For war for humanitarian reasons? Because that to me is a major dividing line and why I am all alone in my dissent here. I don't think the mission is worth it. And now the mission is changing into something much worse. But #1 is really the core of our disagreement here. I'm a non-interventionist. Iraq did me in. I'm done. No more wars. Unless we are attacked like what happened on 9/11 which is why we had to go into Afghanistan originally. We didn't have a choice in 2001. Pretty much from 2002 and onward we have had a choice, and I think we have chosen unwisely.

[wisteria]

19. And, I believe we have an obligation to help others in need, especially when

their leader is a barbarian who thinks nothing of slaughtering his own people because they dare to disagree with him. I could not ignore the pleas for help myself, so I believe the US shouldn't either. And, yes, if the situation merits it, I would be a humanitarian liberal hawk. I feel that unfortunately, using force is necessary especially in situation where the other person only knows brutality and murder. I don't think we can talk and reason with Qaddafi. He doesn't care about his people, he cares about maintaining power for himself and his family.
But, I respect you for believing as you do and voicing that opinion in a very reasonable way.

[beachmom]

28. Thank you for your answer. I respect that this is a philosophical difference.

We're not always going to agree on everything, but it's nice that we can talk about things here in a civil manner.

[Luftmensch067]

21. Well, I won't agree to being a hawk, ever

In my view, a hawk is someone who wants war for the sake of war, war as the only solution. I refuse to accept that label for myself or for JK or for the administration. I won't pretend to understand all the issues perfectly, but I can speak for myself and, with respect, Beachmom, I don't believe you should throw around labels like that without a little more consideration of what a real war hawk is like. That's just my opinion -- you can throw them around if you like, of course.

I refuse to accept that Libya 2011 is Iraq 2003 (and thank you for the links, Prosense -- I haven't had time to read them yet, but I plan to.) We all observed the lead up to both interventions and they were absolutely different, as Prosense and others have outlined. Bush LIED to Congress. That happened. As a supporter of JK, and as an American, I remember it all too well. Bush dragged us into heedless unilateral war, no matter what "Coalition of the Willing" he used to try to justify it. I absolutely do believe that if the Obama administration had heeded JK's call for a NFZ when he first made it, we wouldn't be having exactly this conversation. Instead, they, and those in Europe, waited two weeks until all the ground gained by anti-Gaddafi fighters had been lost, they were outnumbered, outtrained and outgunned and Gaddafi was vowing to slaughter them as he had been slaughtering others in other towns. As Karynnj noted, if we had waited to see if there would be a massacre until there was a massacre, then we could have seen the massacre for sure. That would be the only way to have solid proof -- but by then it would be too late. So, yes, we waited too long. We waited 'til the world was sounding the last-minute alarm and saying DO SOMETHING. WWII is forever off-limits as an internet argument because of Godwin, but I'm drawing that parallel for myself this time, not having it thrown at me like an underhand punch as it was by Bush and the neocon HAWKS who just wanted a war, "a new Pearl Harbor", in 2003.

We went in in the nick of time. But we did not go in impulsively or alone. We got not only the UN, but the ARAB LEAGUE. The Arab League's support was essential and it shows just how conscious the West and the current administration are of NOT being Bush-era hawks. We are determined to do all we can to allow those in Libya and in the Arab world to determine their own future, not to repeat the mistakes of colonialists and neocons. I respect Senator Lugar very highly, at least in his foreign relations capacity, but he is a Republican and his protests, though spoken with more dignity and gravitas, are suspiciously in line with the rest of the GOP. And the GOP is yelling because it is Obama, a Democratic president, who is in charge of this action. It is not a war. It is not Iraq. We are not liberal hawks. And no one here would ever reflexively defend the Administration's actions the way the GOP defended Bush's actions in Iraq. I don't believe that we can or should. But I do believe that we should step back from the GOP, many of whom really *were* before this before they were against it (unlike JK, who was unjustly accused of that equivocation) and realize that the Obama administration is not without its faults, but they did this in a considered, multilateral, thoughtful way and they are trying to resolve the situation with the maximum of humanitarianism and the minimum of involvement and bloodshed, NOT the action of hawks.

Now as to the problems and dangers of the situation we are now IN -- I agree with you, we do not have many good options, but I do believe we are trying hard to find ways to do this intelligently, even so. I heard someone on the radio (can't remember whether he was military or CIA) yesterday talking about what we did to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan, way back. And they used a CIA guy embedded with the friendly forces to ensure precision air support and take out targets strategically. I'm using neutral euphimistic warspeak there deliberately because I don't know any more about that operation and I don't know how much of that was achieved without civilian deaths; all I know is that we did drive the Taliban from control of Afghanistan, which was our aim at the time. We all know what mistakes were made in the aftermath, but that's not my point. That "mission" succeeded, as far as it went. It sounds like that's what we're doing in Libya, too -- no "military" boots on the ground, it's tricky, but it follows the UN resolution and it may save our military forces from being involved while furthering our mission. To the argument that we don't "know" the "rebels": heck, they practically don't know themselves. I'm not over there, I have no idea who "they" are, and I think it's something we have to watch. But I'll tell you who I observed fighting Gaddafi up until our intervention. Protesters. What I saw in the runup to where we are is that, following Tunisia and Egypt, and other Arab protests against tyrants, protests were attempted in Libya. As in other Arab nations, they were met with brutal repression. They defended themselves and kept protesting. All of a sudden, as their self-defense continued, they started being called "the rebels." They weren't called that in early reporting -- I remember noticing the change. I don't know who They are, but I'm guessing some of them are educated professional men who may have fired a gun during national service, or may not have, but are certainly not a highly trained or organized military force. I bet a lot of them are young men with little to no training in ANYTHING. There was no suggestion during the protest period that there was anything like a Muslim Brotherhood threatening to take over. This was a protest inspired by the Arab Spring. This guy Mustafa Abdul Jalil is the most public face of the Council and he is looked to with some trust, as I understand, by the protesters-turned-army because he resigned from the Gaddafi government as Minister of Justice and had been against human rights violations while in office. Does that sound like someone we shouldn't be working with?

We don't know what will happen, what mistakes we will make as we go forward, but on the evidence of what our government has done so far, I would say they are the opposite of hawks. They are acting with deliberation, with an eye to any and all possible non-military solutions, and they are now leaving military operations to the NATO allies. A far cry from what Bush did in Iraq.

This is only my own view. I'm anything but an expert on this issue but, like you, I have been paying attention. I am not a hawk, JK is not a hawk, the Obama administration is NOT the Bush administration. As on most things, I trust JK on this and will follow his thinking on it closely, starting with finally getting to see that whole hearing from yesterday.

[MBS]

42. Thanks for this..

this is pretty much what I think, and you put it well.

[karynnj]

25. I will admit to being a humanitarian liberal hawk

But, I was happier with the idea of freezing funds and trying to use the THREAT of a no fly zone as a deterrent to Gadaffi in his reactions to the protesters. I wonder if Obama, instead of Kerry, had taken the position Kerry did about 4 weeks ago, if Gadaffi would have acted differently.

It seems reasonable that the UN should be able to respond to halt massacres. The remorse expressed after the world did not step in - in the Holocaust, Cambodia, Rwanda etc is not sincere unless there is some effort to find a way that the world can stop killings before the numbers are in the thousands.

I am not an isolationist - but there could have been alternative responses to AQ in 2001. We could have done a more limited action - bombing all the AQ camps, rather than declaring war on the Taliban.

In Libya, the question of why here exists. I get the idea that a massacre in Libya and a progressively regressive government could destabalize the fragile chances of Tunisia and Egypt emerging as stable countries. (If more was wanted - Syria's lack of reforms - suggests it didn't happen. It might be that the intuitively pleasing dominoes theory - which did not happen in Southeast Asia, and did not happen after the neo-con attack on Iraq, might not work any better even when the uprisings were from the citizens.)

[Luftmensch067]

26. You don't sound like a hawk to me

A hawk is someone who WANTS, who advocates for war, for a "belligerent foreign policy." In recent definition in our national dictionary, it means someone who is *hungry* for war. We are not in a war in Libya right now. And you yourself say that you prefer a diplomatic solution. Rather than a hawk, you sound like a reasoning, ethical person, as is everyone in this forum. We don't have to label ourselves or others.

[karynnj]

27. It depends on the semantics

There are people who are pacifists. I respect them and know many of them as several years ago, before we had a building, my synagogue shared space with the Quakers. It was a very harmonious relationship and we saw their posters and went to some of their events.

There are people, as Beachmom defines herself, who thing that we should go to war only when our national security is in jeopardy. These people could further be split by how they define our national security. One group would take it more narrowly than the other. Kerry has, I think, spoken of this as furthering our national interests in the Middle East - in addition to avoiding a humanitarian disaster.

The danger is that national security, which often morphs into national interest. Jimmy Carter, who is often named as a morla President, created the Carter Doctrine that said we would protect our access to oil. This was the reason for the first Gulf war that IMO started the entire mess. It is neo-con view that spreading democracy is our national interest.

I disagree, but understand Beachmom's position on wars for humanitarian reasons. She is being 100% consistent and said that we should not have intervened in Rwanda. I can see that there is huge inconsistencies between when we intervene and when we don't. I can also see that there is a danger of saying we are intervening to stop a massacre when none would happen to topple a country we - for other reasons have problems with.

[Luftmensch067]

30. You describe the continuum of philosophical and moral positions on this well

I have no argument with that, nor do I have any argument with anyone here having their own position. We absolutely don't have to agree. If we did, we would dishonor the spirit of John Kerry to whom this forum is dedicated. But it IS a question of semantics. I don't agree that anyone here (anyone I have seen, anyway) can be identified as a hawk (that is my opinion, you are welcome to have your own definition!) and I refuse to be brand anyone here with a label (again, they're free to label themselves.) Words are important and labels divide us.

[beachmom]

29. Actually that is not what I meant when I said "hawk". I mean someone who is interventionist

in their foreign policy philosophy. When I say intervention I mean military intervention. FWIW, here is the Wiki on liberal hawks, many of whom supported the Iraq War which all of you did not, which is why I added the word "humanitarian":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_hawk

The term liberal hawk refers to a politically liberal individual (in the American sense of the term) who supports a hawkish, interventionist foreign policy. Past U.S. presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson have been described as liberal hawks for their roles in bringing about America's status as the world's premier military power. The Clinton Doctrine can also be considered as consistent with this vision. Today the term is most frequently used to describe liberals and leftists who supported or still support the decision to invade Iraq in 2003, which was authorized by the United States Congress and ordered by a conservative president, George W. Bush. The war has stirred heated controversy among all political sides of the debate. The American left was divided over the issue of whether going to war in Iraq was the right decision, as some liberals felt that they should support the war, in accordance with the philosophy of liberal internationalism, which had caused them to support military intervention in the past.

I want to be clear that I am not an isolationist -- I believe in full diplomacy, foreign aid, participation in the U.N. and peacekeeping missions, targeted sanctions, etc. I just don't like the idea of reaching for the gun when something bad happens in the world. It is not because I don't care about human suffering; it's that I am skeptical that our good intentions will overall lead to a good result. In my lifetime, our good intentions seem to always lead to disaster.

Although Iraq became a partisan issue, we forget that a lot of liberals sincerely backed that war for humanitarian reasons -- Saddam Hussein was the biggest butcher on the Middle Eastern bloc. He was pure evil and slaughtered his own people on many occasions. Yes, Bush lied re: WMD but some liberals were more interested in giving the Iraqi people the chance to have democracy and be freed from a horrible evil tyrant. I disagreed then, but I understood the impulse.

However, I did not mean to offend you, Luftmensch, with a label. Perhaps "humanitarian liberal interventionist" is more apt? The point is I don't subscribe with that point of view, but I think many people here do which is why we disagree here. Anyway, thank you for your long post -- very thought provoking as is this entire discussion.

[Luftmensch067]

31. Thanks for your post, too!

It is a good discussion and I appreciate it as this is a very baffling time and it's hard to know what to believe or which stand to take. I see now why you used the term "liberal hawk" which is one I hadn't heard before. I still don't agree with it and I still don't think we need to put labels on ourselves or each other. I have moral opinions which change with each new situation (this is something I learned was possible because of JK and it's a mature insight I prize.) From what you're saying here, you don't consider yourself an isolationist, even though you may feel that military intervention is not advisable in this or certain other situations. It can be useful to label positions, but I'm advocating for a forum where we don't have to do that. Where we just talk.

[TayTay]

33. You are not alone

I find this a deeply troubling development on several levels. I should think that a certain Lt. Kerry, should he have a chance to speak to a Sen. Kerry on this, would also voice deep problems with what has happened with and in Libya.

I have always been deeply troubled by this line from "Liberal" President John F. Kennedy in his inaugural address: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty.” I swear I hear this JFK quote in Goldwater in 1964: "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

I can comment more as I read through the thread.

[ProSense]

41. Actually

"Also, I feel like all of you are all just fine with using our military all over the place for reasons other than national security."

...I'm not fine with that. I'm also not worried about mission creep in this situation. Gaddafi lost his mind and was in the process of committing atrocities. Every situation is different.

In fact, I see more justification for the Libya no-fly zone than I see for remaining in Afghanistan. It's amazing to watch members of Congress who up to now never once mentioned the mission creep in Aghanistan, the death and billions spent, suddenly in an uproar about this mission, which is very limited in scope. In fact, it's almost miniscule compared to the other missions.

I don't consider Iraq to be comparable to anything but a war based on a lie. It was a complete abuse of power and had nothing to do with internvention. It was an illegal invasion.

When necessary for humanitarian purposes, I'm not opposed to intervention.

2011 Annual Letter

Fifty years ago, John F. Kennedy wrote a letter to Congress that called for the creation of the Agency I am now privileged to lead—USAID, the United States Agency for International Development.

Having witnessed the devastation the Second World War caused in Europe—and the success the Marshall Plan had in rebuilding it—President Kennedy argued that advancing opportunity and freedom to all people was central to America’s domestic security, comparative prosperity and national conscience.

I wanted to commemorate President Kennedy’s letter by writing one of my own, describing our Agency’s work to the millions of Americans who care deeply about overcoming global poverty, hunger, illness and injustice.

Full letter (PDF)

[karynnj]

22. I agree completely as to those facts

But realistically know how impossible arguing that the IRW was misused is - as do all of us. In fact, the Dean campaign and most of the left helped Bush define that war as sanctioned by Congress. It is normal and fair that Dean used the difference he had with Kerry to try to win - even if his 2002 comments were at least as aggressive as Kerry's - and arguably more so. It was also clear that in 2002, had there been no resolution, Bush STILL could have attacked - and the Downing Street memos speak of the likelihood of that.

Here, although it was just the Senate, Menendez's resolution did speak of the no fly zone and it passed unanimously. Although I know that means no Senator called for a roll call, it was clear from Collins comments that she did read it and decide not to oppose it - certainly the ranking member of the SFRC did too. (It is at least as easy to parse the IWR and say that Bush did not follow all the actions listed than it is to say that Obama/UN is not doing what was called for here.) Neither themselves declare war or commit the US.

As to Libya, from the questions of both Durbin and Kerry, there is some real possibility that we will not be there by the end of the 60 day period - likely making a resolution moot. From this mornings news, the Gadaffi troops going into Misrata make the fear the world had of massacre unfortunately more justified.

[MBS]

43. yup, people need to remember that that

March 1 resolution was by unanimous consent. If any senator objected to this, they could have demanded a vote. So all the Repub senators who complain that they weren't consulted or didn't have a chance to voice their opinion (I'm thinking of you, Scott Brown) are full of s_______.

[beachmom]

17. Great post, Karen. Thanks for the hearing info. nt

[beachmom]

16. Uh, the Iraq War was discussed a lot before it happened.

I highly disagreed in 2003 but I remember having debates about it at my playgroup. But Libya just happened with no discussion as to whether it was a good idea or not.

As to the President he is not a king. I don't believe in "trusting" the President in a vacuum -- more like trust, but verify. Yeah, lots of citizens are ignorant or easily fooled by propaganda media but to say because of that we should just trust the guy in the White House goes against everything I believe about America and our democracy. If we wanted a monarchy where the King knew best then we would have stuck with King George.

Edited for spelling.

[wisteria]

20. I believe there was more of need to act quicly in Libya than there was in Iraq. n/t

[TayTay]

34. I agree with these sentiments

I think my deepest problems with George W. Bush's reign as President was the forward march of the theory of the "Unitary Executive." A pretty good primer on this very theoretical Constitutional argument is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_Executive">at the Wikipedia site.

At the same time, I find an astonishing level of hypocrisy on the part of Republicans who are suddenly awakening to the peril of a super-powerful Presidency. I think any one of us could surf the Congressional Record and find numerous instances of Repubs like Cornyn, McConnell and others who thought the all-powerful Presidency a great idea, as long as the Pres was like them. (Ok, it would be astonishing if Repubs still possessed the ability to astonish me. They don't. They live and breathe hypocrisy and I don't think they care about the use and abuse of power. I think they only believe in winning power for themselves.)

I think that Sen. Kerry and President Obama are filled with the best of intentions when it comes to Libya. I really do believe this. I think that there was a lesson to be learned from the non-intervention in Rwanda. I also cannot believe that a US intervention in Rwanda would have been the panacea that would have altered much of that sad and bloody history.

Did anyone here see the Made for HBO movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1117646/">"The Special Relationship"? This excellent movie tells the story of the relationship between Tony Blair and Bill Clinton and deals directly with the story of the intervention in Kosovo. Blair, in the movie, was the catalyst for the international action in Kosovo. That worked out well, from Blair's point of view, but it also taught Blair the lesson that intervention in support of liberty is no vice. Blair supported the invasion of Iraq under George W. Bush. (Really, see this movie, it's quite good.)

We did stop a total genocide in the former Yugoslavia. (Maybe) The end result of Kosovo was the dissolution of Yugoslavia into 7 separate countries which are, largely, ethnically and religiously separated. Diversity and liberality did not overtake these 7 republics at the end of the war. Ethnic and religious barriers were put in place to prevent more genocide. That was the end result. We might end up with a similar end result in Libya with Quadaffi still in power in a split country. Is this worth it?

One of the great questions left over from the 20th Century is one of ethics: should the great powers of the day intervene to prevent genocides? This was not done in Germany and eventually 50 million human souls perished in WWII. Could the US have intervened earlier and saved many of those lives and avoided some of the horrendous costs of that war? Was it ethical to not declare war until much later in the actual conflict? (Hitler was elected in 1933 and began his reigh of terror then. The US declared war in 1941 after millions had already died.) What is the correct ethical response here: use great power to advocate on the part of the innocent and prevent suffering or use great power that then becomes a force without limits.

I am not sure. I am deeply, deeply troubled by the President's action. Yes, he did technically inform Congress of his intentions on Libya, but there was some sleight-of-hand going on there as he knew of Congress' plans to take a week off. I am, obviously, not in favor of allowing tyrants to kill their people and have no sympathy for Quadaffi. (which I know is a non-argument as who would approve of this.)

I am also worried that the Arab League will fail to follow through on their commitment to this action. I don't trust them and I don't trust their ability to be steadfast and clear when it comes to actually caring for civilians and innocents in Islamic or Arab lands.

Most of all I am worried that Pres Obama is amassing more power into an Executive branch that, more and more, is consolidating power without supervision or oversight. This is very, very bad for a democracy. This country was founded on a respect for the rule of law with the guarantee that no one, not even the President, is above the law. I fear these actions are placing the President "above the law" and above the system of checks and balances that we have and this is not a good thing.

More and more I agree with, of all people, Dwight Eisenhower whenever war is mentioned.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron. ~Dwight D. Eisenhower, speech, American Society of Newspaper Editors, 16 April 1953

At some point we have to stop choosing war as the way to show power in the world. (And this goes back a long way. Amereica's military and intelligence involvement in the Middle East goes back a long way. We are getting payback for wars and CIA involvements from long ago.)

[beachmom]

36. Yes, I saw that HBO movie and actually thought about it in the last week.

I actually liked Clinton's cautiousness in the movie, and wonder why there was not as much cautiousness in his wife's now as SoS. (as an aside, Hope Davis was a childhood friend so I am tickled pink at the wonderful roles she has had -- she totally WAS Hillary Clinton in that film -- her performance alone is worth viewing the movie!). I feel like NOT doing something is no longer valued in this country, and I wish that would change.

As to ethics (excellent primer, Tay), I have wondered about this as well. Rwanda was ghastly but would have required a ground campaign to stop because the slaughter was, for lack of a better term, "low tech". I still remember seeing video of U.N. peacekeeping troops, who couldn't basically do anything, take knives and slice their U.N. hats they were so disgusted with the U.N.'s impotence. So, would a full scale invasion of Rwanda have been possible by the United States and other U.N. nations? I dont' think so.

I do think we need to stop and think about the extreme evil of Adolf Hitler, and wonder whether we wish to use HIS standard for the "goodness" of war. Someone once said that the real evil of Hitler was that war seemed "good" in response to his actions. War is, of course, anything but good and is, in fact, the ultimate inhumanity of man. But against the inhumanity of the Nazis, it was necessary. But do we really want to base our foreign policy on that? Do we want to allow Adolf Hitler to still have power over what we do? That is what gives me pause. He is the exception, not the rule.

[TayTay]

38. excellent post

Excellent questions as regards the lessons of WWII. History learned in hindsight is suspect history. We tend to think of WWII as "the good war" yet there are numerous assertions that the average American fighting in that war was not aware of the greater implications of what was going on in the War. Soldiers did not know why they were fighting and dying. (There are hints of this in the "Saving Private Ryan" movie.)

Hitler's evils were perpetuated because an uninformed and uninvolved electorate in Germany let him come to power. The scariest parts of William Shirer's exhaustive book about Germany before and during the war are about how unresponsive the German population was when major events happened during Hitler's reign. (Book: The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) Shirer was a correspondent in Germany and he records how there was an astonishing lack of response from Germans when Hitler had one of his power grabs. Nothing, no protests, no marching in the streets, nothing. I think we have as much to learn ethically from that as from anything in the actual bloodletting of the war. Could we, in the US, have stopped a Hitler early on when his own people didn't bother to? (Again, this is a moral and ethical swamp. The big dispute and problems almost always are.)

ADD: Your friend was wonderful as Hillary Clinton. This is one of my favorite portrayals of her that show multiple sides to HRC. Excellent work.

I have thought of that movie and Blair at the end of the movie a lot recently. Blair was not wrong for wanting to intervene in the former Yugoslav area and stop the bloodletting. However, the lesson he learned from doing so, to relative success,is suspect. Blair still maintains that going into Iraq was the right thing to do. I think even George Bush has doubts about that now.

This, of course, begs the question, what was the lesson of Kosovo, a place where intervention "worked?" Can that lesson be both good and bad? Can we intervene without harming our original intent of helping? Recent history says no.

[ProSense]

5. Good statement.

Juan Cole has a series of interesting post on the subject:

Top Ten Ways that Libya 2011 is Not Iraq 2003

Obama on Libya vs. Trump, Palin, Bachmann, Romney, Gingrich and Carrot Top

An Open Letter to the Left on Libya

Another interesting read: Obama’s Delay in the Libya Intervention Took a Page from FDR

[MBS]

44. thanks for these.

Prosense, our very own in-house search-engine/Wikipedia.You're the best! :) :loveya:

Interestingly, I have several far-left friends (ones who won't give Pres Obama the time of day.. you've heard it all before.. ) who are on board (with mixed feelings but on board) with the Libya initiative.

[Mass]

23. Obama, Libya, and Me - Kevin Drum

Rather than writing a rambling rant that will only unperfectly reflect my opinion, let me post this article by Kevin Drum who reflects what I think quite well

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/03/obamas-judgment

One of the reasons to vote for someone for president — perhaps the key reason, in fact — is good judgment. Hillary Clinton may have taken a lot of flack for her "3 am phone call" ad during the Democratic primaries in 2008, but she was basically right: ideologically, there wasn't that much distance between Obama and Clinton, which meant that a big part of any liberal's decision that year was figuring which candidate had the better judgment. We knew how both of them felt about healthcare reform and climate change and education policy, but what would they do when something came up that no one could predict? How would they handle a Katrina or a 9/11?

I was one of many who ended up voting for Obama on the grounds that his judgment seemed a bit sounder. Maybe not as toughminded as Hillary, but just as smart and, in foreign affairs, seemingly a little more willing to look at the world with fresh eyes and resist the siren call of intervention at every turn.
...
t's being pretty sorely tested, that's for sure. Obama has been a disappointment on civil liberties and national security issues, but since I frankly don't think any modern president can buck the national security establishment in any significant way, I haven't held that too deeply against him. The escalation in Afghanistan has been unfortunate too, but he did warn us about that.
...
o what should I think about this? If it had been my call, I wouldn't have gone into Libya. But the reason I voted for Obama in 2008 is because I trust his judgment. And not in any merely abstract way, either: I mean that if he and I were in a room and disagreed about some issue on which I had any doubt at all, I'd literally trust his judgment over my own. I think he's smarter than me, better informed, better able to understand the consequences of his actions, and more farsighted. I voted for him because I trust him, and I still do.

For now, anyway. But I wouldn't have intervened in Libya and he did. I sure hope his judgment really does turn out to have been better than mine.

[Inuca]

24. Thanks for this quote Mass

It pretty well expresses how I feel as well, especially the "I think he's smarter than me, better informed, better able to understand the consequences of his actions, and more farsighted" part. This being said, I am conused and worried about all of this. I cannot be squarely neither in the "for" nor in the "against" camp, that's why I mostly stay out of the discussion and I am left with trusting those with more smarts and much, much more information, like JK and Obama. Nevertheless, often when I watch or read the news, I feel like a pit in my stomach or whatever the expression is, not comfortable nor cheerful :-(.

[Mass]

40. I have avoided to discuss this as well as I am not necessarily

fully knowledgeable on the issue, but also because I would smack people on both sides of the aisle. Way too many people talking about things they dont know.

[beachmom]

32. Good post, except I disagree with the last part.

I just don't feel a confident level in trust of the President with this Libyan intervention. A President is only as good as his advisers, and it ends up Samantha Powers is for war for humanitarian reasons, and has a record of those beliefs. I think she and a few others were very influential.

[TayTay]

35. We cannot govern on trust, it doesn't work

We govern under the Rule of Law in the US. If we want to govern under trust, then we disband the constitution and develop a monarchy. The King then rules by Divine Right that says that his/her actions are divinely inspired and can't be questioned. Democracies don't believe in the Divine Right of Kings.

Any President, maybe especially the ones I like and vote for, have to abide by the Rule of Law. If we don't abide by the Law, we don't have a Democracy. We have a Monarchy in all but name. We cannot assume that the President rules by virtue of his/her superior brain and morals. That doesn't work. (This is not the Land of Oz where we can have the Scarecrow, the Tinman and the Lion ruling because we can safely assume they know best.)

President Obama is subsuming more power to himself. This is what Presidents have been doing since Theodore Roosevelt. It is not beneficial to the US for them to do this. It is too much power vested in one office. It is bad for democracy.

EDIT: One of the arguments that Repubs made under the last Pres that made me ill was that Bush had to be trusted because he had God's favor. This was implied in the 2000 campaign and explicitly stated in 2004. These sentiments are part of the backbone of the Religious Rights idea that a "Christian" President is needed because only a "Christian" has the moral fortitude to govern "correctly." The depths of hypocrisy coming from some RW Repubs in Congress and on the national stage as regards Pres. Obama and his actions in Libya is just amazing. They totally believe in the Divine Right of Kings. Only they have to be the Kings. If this action had been taken by Bush, or any of the 2012 wannabees, they would be making arguments that, in effect, say we should trust them because they have supernatural wisdom. We cannot abide this argument. It is against the idea that we are one nation, under law.

[beachmom]

37. Yeah, this video which is an excerpt from Fahrenheit 9/11 is graphic but telling:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBrMS4waM64

Some tough scenes but watch the last minute and a half and see what Britney Spears said. Sorry, it doesn't matter who the President is -- it is a mistake to "trust" them and "every decision that he makes". There are more accountability moments than the presidential election. It is an ongoing affair.

[TayTay]

39. We have a rule of law because we need it

We elect fallible human beings. We hold these people accountable precisely because they are fallible and thus susceptible to error. We cannot blindly trust in the ability of our leaders to "know best" because it leads down a terrible path. Nixon proclaimed that "if the President does it, it's not illegal." I disagreed with Nixon. I disagreed with Bush on his unilateral grabs for power. And I fear what Obama is sanctioning this view in his use of power. Yes, his goals are noble, but the means of achieving them have consequences. These are consequences we will have to face up to with the next Republican President who will cite Obama's actions as a precedent.

Is this truly what we want?

[wisteria]

47. It is not naive to trust in whom you elect. After all you elected him to do what you considered the

right things. Of course they are only human, but so are we, and every time we assume we know more than those closer to the matter, we lose faith in those who lead us, and the more cynical and un-trusting we become. What is wrong with withholding judgment and placing a little faith in your leaders once in a while? Constantly challenge their every move and planting more seeds of mistrust seems to me to be bad for Democracy. I am not saying that there aren't times when our voices should be heard, but in some conflicts I think we need to pull back and have a little faith.

[YvonneCa]

51. Did either of you see this speech back in...

...2006 by Al Gore at Constitution Hall? He speaks of the rule of law eloquently.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/DomesticSur

[wisteria]

46. But, you have to trust the decision making of those who lead us. Law alone doesn't

always provide the answers we need. Sure those we elect should be governed by our laws,but we should trust them enough to interpret them and execute them in the correct ways.
Frankly, I get tired of people constantly second guessing and attacking those we elect to lead us. In this case, people who do not have any inside intelligence, all the facts, and all the information are quick to declare this a war, and to claim it is a disaster. There is no repect given to those who serve us and this country any longer. There seems to be deminished trust and this makes it more difficult to lead and to really get things done. I choose to trust our current President and to accept that he is following the laws of the US when he makes decisions like this one.

[wisteria]

45. We need to have faith and respect for our leaders. I also voted for Pres. Obama because I trusted

his judgement on issues of importance. I trust that he weighed all of the options carefully before he made this move and I trust this decision was well thought out and planned.

Our former President on the other hand always made me nervous because he was such a reactionary and made quick decisions based on his gut feelings.

[karynnj]

48. During the Bush years, when I looked back at some of the roots

of then current foreign policy and domestic policy problems from the Carter or Clinton years, I realized that we can't just accept everything from a Democratic President.

I have respect for President Obama - though some things have tested it. There are many things he was able to do in terms of Domestic policy that are remarkable given the power against him on some of it. On Libya - and the rest of North Africa, it has been nearly impossible to decide whether various things that happened - not in our control or instigated by us - would ultimately be good or bad for us.

I believe that Obama is smart and that he is a good man and that, of course, he knows far more on what is happening than we do, but that does not mean that he will always make the choice that in retrospect will be seen as the right one. (The same goes for Senator Kerry, who I have an even stronger feeling that he is a genuinely good person.)

[Mass]

49. I think this is the point Kevin Drum was trying to make. He was not saying that he believed

unconditionally, but rather that, for now and given the information he has, he trusts Obama. The problem with blind trust (or blind distrust for the matter) is that we accept/reject things that are untrue/true for a pure ideological POV (see the flat-earth caucus rejecting any proof of global warming, for example, but sometimes the left does the same thing).

My problem with some of the left rejection of Libya's intervention is that it is a lot less well thought that it should. Some of the reasons are really weird (such as this DUer who was proclaiming Gaddhafi was a hero who was fighting Al Quaeda -- really?). Others were just war fatigued, something I can understand. and of course some are just opposing Obama.

It is a difficult decision, and frankly, I have not really decided if I feel comfortable with it or not (I wished I was not cynical and unsure of the humanitarian motives).

[wisteria]

50. As anything else in life, we can only hope and have faith that the right decisions are being made. n