This Kind Of Logic Makes My Head Spin

Hot Air reported Wednesday on the battle between Congress and the White House over the War Powers Resolution and the "war" in Libya. 

The article quotes:

""We are not saying the president can take the country into war on his own," Mr. Koh (State Department legal adviser Harold Koh) said. "We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped, or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of 'hostilities' envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.""

What he is saying here is that the application of the War Powers Resolution is determined by how deeply involved we are in a war--not by the fact that we are in a war.  The 90-day mark in the war on Libya (which began March 18) is here. and Congress has already reminded the White House that Congress has not authorized the Libya mission.  John Boehner has sent a letter to the President stating that if Congress does not authorize the Libya mission by Sunday, President Obama is in violation of the War Powers Act.

The article further reports:

"What's the difference, according to the White House's War Powers logic, between what we're doing in Libya right now and what we're doing in Yemen? Special Ops has been using drones and remotely piloted planes in Yemen for years; CIA drones are set to join the battle soon to provide more firepower against Al Qaeda. So while there are no U.S. forces at risk, the mission is escalating and we're not in a support role. Does that mean the WPA does or doesn't apply? Or is it the White House's position that the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force passed after 9/11 lets it go after AQ anywhere, in perpetuity, so that a new congressional authorization isn't needed?"

I guess the thing that worries me here is that theoretically we could be at war with the entire Middle East by saying that we are pursuing Al Qaeda or protecting civilian lives from a tyrannical dictator.  That is expensive in both monetary cost and the cost of the young men and women in our military.  We need an organized Middle East policy that puts the interests of America first.  All other countries in the world have foreign policies that put their own interests first.  We need to make sure we do that.  I am not opposed to humanitarian aid--but we cannot continue to spend our young lives for causes that may or may not be worthwhile.