Various Opinions On Libya

At the Heritage Foundation‘s “Morning Bell”:

“But the fact that these operations could be successfully undertaken by coalition forces was never in doubt. The problem is that these operations by themselves will not be decisive in either eliminating the regime or fully protecting civilians. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday that the U.S. expects to turn control of the Libya military mission over to a coalition (headed by the French? the British? or by NATO?) “in a matter of days.” What happens if Qadhafi is still in power by that time? The United Nations mandate authorizing these strikes is extremely broad, permitting anything but “occupying” Libya. The coalition has yet to state specific goals for the operation. What does protecting civilians mean.”

Yesterday’s New York Sun pointed out the similarities between what President Obama is doing and what Sarah Palin suggested three weeks ago.  The Sun points out:

“The former GOP vice presidential candidate was being interviewed on February 23rd on national television by Sean Hannity on a range of issues. On the Libya crisis, she proposed a no-fly zone to protect the armed and un-armed opposition to the Qaddafi regime. Mrs. Palin’s formulation had been blogged about for nearly a week when it was echoed by the man who, before the Iraq war, had led the Iraq democratic movement in exile, Ahmed Chalabi.”

On Saturday at National Review Online, Andrew McCarthy stated:

“On Thursday evening, the U.N. Security Council voted 10-0 (with five abstentions, including China, Russia, and Germany) to authorize the use of military force (i.e., “all necessary measures”) against Libya. Ostensibly, the resolution is designed to protect the Libyan people. But not to mince words, it is a license for war against the regime of Moammar Qaddafi. It would kick hostilities off with a no-fly zone over Libya. As a practical matter, American armed forces must do the heavy lifting if the strategy is to have a prayer, and indications are that President Obama intends to oblige.

“There is a catch: The Security Council is powerless to “authorize” the U.S. military to do a damned thing. The validity of American combat operations is a matter of American law, and that means Congress must authorize them.”

Mr. McCarthy does not necessarily argue against the war–he argues that a UN Resolution is no substitute for Congressional authorization.  America has a Constitution.  I know that Congress has sometimes been bypassed when a President decides to go to war, but this is not a good idea.  America really does need to go back to her Constitutional roots.