Editor's Note: Dr. James M. Lindsay is a Senior Vice President at the Council on Foreign Relations and co-author of "America Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy." Visit his blog here and follow him on Twitter.
By James M. Lindsay
The House will hold two votes on U.S. participation in the Libya operation, perhaps as early as tomorrow. The votes will reveal a lot about GOP unity on national security and whether President Obama can command the support of his fellow Democrats in the House.
One of the bills is a binding joint resolution that would authorize the “limited use” of the U.S. military to participate in the NATO mission in Libya. The resolution is modeled on a similar one that Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and John McCain (R-AZ) have introduced in the Senate.
The resolution also states that “Congress does not support deploying, establishing, or maintaining the presence of units and members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya” except for search and rescue operations and to protect U.S. government officials who come under direct attack. That provision is nonbinding.
The second bill is a nonbinding concurrent resolution that states that “Congress hereby directs the President to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with respect to Libya” within fifteen days of the resolution’s passage. The resolution would, however, allow U.S. military forces to participate in the NATO mission in support roles, which are defined as “search and rescue; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; aerial refueling; and operational planning.” The exemption for support missions appears intended to limit the resolution’s impact on the NATO mission—and thereby make it easier for House members to vote for it.
A concurrent resolution is the mechanism for ending an unauthorized war that the authors of the War Powers Resolution had in mind when they wrote the law back in 1973. The problem is that ten years later the Supreme Court ruled in I.N.S. v. Chadha that this use of the concurrent resolution, which is known in the trade as a legislative veto, is unconstitutional. Why? Because the Constitution requires that all binding legislation be presented to the president for his signature and therefore be subject to a presidential veto. That’s not the case with a legislative veto. The current Supreme Court almost certainly would not overturn the I.N.S. v. Chadha precedent or find a loophole in it.
House Republicans deserve credit for scheduling a vote. Congress should vote when the country initiates and pursues sustained hostilities abroad. The House GOP leadership probably will not seek to enforce party discipline on the vote, so large numbers of Republicans could end up on opposite sides of the issue. The White House presumably will urge House Democrats to vote against the concurrent resolution even if they cannot bring themselves to vote for the binding resolution of authorization.
The other pressing question is how the votes will turn out. An obvious possibility given bipartisan complaints about the Libya operations is that the House refuses to authorize the mission and demands an end to direct U.S. participation. That would create significant but not insurmountable political problems for the White House. Significant because no president wants to see one house of Congress formally repudiate his policy choices. Not insurmountable because the Senate almost certainly wouldn’t follow the House’s lead and many prominent Republicans would criticize the House vote.
The House could also reject both measures, which would leave most everyone scratching their heads wondering what message lawmakers were trying to send. Such conflicting messages have precedent. In April 1999, the Republican-controlled House refused to vote to support the air campaign in Kosovo. The next month the House voted to fund the Kosovo war.
The White House hopes, of course, that the House votes to authorize the Libya mission. That would make it likely that the Senate would as well. If that happened, President Obama would be on unassailable ground to continue with U.S. participation in military operations in Libya.
How would you vote if you were a member of Congress?
© 2011 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Contact us | Work for us | Help
I don't expect the House to do the right thing and cut off funding for this obscene enterprise that the right-wing thugs undertook in Libya. We need to quit supporting the so-called "rebels" and stop bombing Libyan cities and killing their civilians. But knowing just how unprincipled these people are, I won't be disappointed for not doing the right thing.
It's disappointing that this criticism the very people who first complained that we weren't acting fast enough before we acted, then complained that we were overstepping our bounds when we did.
More importantly, everyone seems to have forgotten why we intervened in Libya when we did. Qaddafi was on the way to slaughter civilians in Benghazi. Any doubt of his resolve is baseless when one takes into account the massacre of Abu Salim ('96), his soldiers' vows to come for rebels, his son's threat that rivers of blood would flow, and his own threat of going house to hose to root out prisoners. The regime hasn't changed, and, as of now, Qaddafi is unquestionably responsible for the hundreds, if not thousands, who died fighting for change.
Our response was a humanitarian intervention to prevent a massacre. It was in line with American ideals of human rights. It was initiated by another country and is executed multilaterally.
Beyond the concerns over the President's abuses of the War Powers Act, we have to remember what's at stake if we drop out. First, the civilians on whose behalf we intervened have a higher risk of arbitrary attack by Qaddafi. To our allies, we signal that we're mercurial and unreliable partners in war. Citizens of dictatorships fighting for their rights will know that the U.S. will do worse than turn blind eyes to their woes; we'll give solid support, then pull it away when protesters put their lives on the line for their ideals, leaving them vulnerable. Finally, and of direct concern to the U.S., Qaddafi's retention of power is against our interests. Now that we attacked him, not only will he stop supporting our war on terrorism, he may sponsor terrorism against the U.S., as he did in the past against a Pan Am flight.
Any talk of ending our support in Afghanistan is short-sighted and ignores anything going on outside our borders.
It's consistent that the Republicans want to end America's military mission in Libya as voices of the general public are loud, doubting the meaning of the U.S. involvment there, where national interests are not at risk.
Here I see the weakness of the Congress as its legislative veto can be overruled by the presidential veto. Obama wouldn't hesitate to use his power to defend his policy, as he had been seen weak in other pressing issues in the past.
At the end of the day, it's the people's concerns that count. Wars are expensive and the tax payers have to pay for them.
I generally think that the GOP would welcome an opportunity to remove Qadaffi under any other president than Obama. I also think that then Senator Obama would have objected vehemently if Pres. George Bush had denied that his military entanglement constituted 'hostilities'.
So,.. admit it's a war and ask Congress to buy into it on its merits. Obligate the rebels to FULLY reimburse their allies for outlays when it's over, and do away with all the screwy restrictions in the U.N. resolution. A war is a war; start calling it that. An if any of these parties isn't up for that,... pack up the bags and bring 'em home.
How can we be the role model for democracy when we're all "Do as I say, not as I do!" Since Gaddafi has taken power in that region how many times has the US and or NATO bombed them? Americans, you have forgotten one of your own, a person that should never be forgotten. Leon Klinghoffer. Who do you ask? He was abroad the Achille Lauro celebrating his 36th wedding anniversary when it was hijacked by 4 men trained in Libya. Leon Klinghoffer was murdered in his wheelchair and his body tossed overbroad. How many more must pay for leaving Gaddafi in power? Mr. President, Congress, Americans, do the right thing and put an end to prolonged suffering Gaddafi has inflicted once and for all.