As the NATO military action in Libya begins its fourth month, the chorus of voices, both in Washington and in the rest of the nation, calling for President Obama to either justify his actions in committing U.S. forces or bring them home (or just bring them home) grows louder. However, on Sunday during an appearance on Meet the Press, Republican Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina backed up the President’s actions. In part, the Senator said that he would “be no part of an effort to defund Libya or to try to cut off our efforts to bring Qaddafi down.” Sen. Graham stated that his position is that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional and “not worth the paper it’s written on,” pretty much agreeing with every President since Nixon, Democrat and Republican alike.
The War Powers Act of 1973 (Act), passed over the veto of President Nixon, requires that the President (a) notify Congress within 48 hours of any military action and (b) limits such action to 60 days (plus an additional 30 days for the withdrawal of troops unless Congress authorizes the commitment of U.S. troops. Just providing funding for the action does not equal an authorization of it under the Act.
There are a number of questions surrounding U.S. involvement in Libya. Among them, are the President’s actions within his authority as Commander-in-Chief? Would a withdrawal from the NATO mission spell the end of NATO’s relevance? Should the U.S. be involved in the air campaign at all?
Since the military action has lasted longer than 60 days, it would seem that the President has violated the Act, but as in almost every other similar circumstance (including the air campaigns in the Balkans in the late 90′s) the President and his legal counsel have insisted that there is no need for Congressional approval, in this particular case due to the limited nature of the U.S. involvement and the leadership of NATO in this mission, The Republican-held House of Representatives voted to rebuke the President on June 3 as a result of the perceived violation of the Act. The issue has not been explicitly raised before the Supreme Court, though Congress and various Presidents have been at odds over it since its enactment. Perhaps the current political climate will force the Act’s legality into the the spotlight more than in the past.
As far as the demise of NATO, it would seem that dictators the world over are watching to see if the Western world’s greatest alliance is able to remove one faltering North African dictator from power. NATO may not dissolve if the U.S. pull back and the remaining nations are unable to remove Qaddafi, but it would certainly seem that governments in North Korea, Iran, Syria and others would take heart from a NATO failure in Libya. It is often, and loudly, argued that the U.S. has no security interest in the Libyan conflict. I would suggest, however, that our allies in Europe certainly do. The 9/11 attacks caused the first invocation of NATO’s collective defense article (i.e. an attack on one member is an attack on all the members). The result is the ISAF combat mission in Afghanistan and the training mission in Iraq. In other words, NATO members came to the aid of the U.S. (to varying degrees, of course) when called. As Europe now faces a military, political and humanitarian crises on their doorstep, with potentially worldwide ramifications for failure, it stands to reason that U.S. involvement is required to the on-going relevance of our alliance.
The world stood by and did nothing during the Rwandan Genocide in 1994. Though the circumstances there were somewhat different than those in Libya, Colonel Qaddafi’s threats to destroy the rebels in Benghazi (with a population of over 600,000) strongly suggested a massacre of similar proportion was possible, even likely. Alternatively, the NATO air campaigns in the Balkans served to help bring about an end to the atrocities there in 1999. The price of inaction seems clear. I would argue that despite the cost of the effort, and the dangers inherent in it, the NATO campaign is justified, and the U.S. presence required.
It is interesting to note that the Congressional calls for a withdrawal from the NATO mission are coming from both sides of the aisle. Democrats opposed to the mission find themselves having to choose between a cash-strapped and war-weary electorate and supporting their party’s leader, while some Republicans, who supported the Bush Administration’s war-making and previously echoed Sen. Graham’s thoughts on the War Powers Act, are now citing it to rein in a President who they say has overstepped his bounds. The calls for cutting off funding to the mission have led to two possible amendments to a spending bill that would either cut off funds immediately or cut off funds that were not used for withdrawal. Meanwhile, Senators John McCain and John Kerry are drafting a resolution to approve of the mission in conformity with the War Powers Act. I imagine Colonel Qaddafi is in a bunker somewhere, eyes glued to C-SPAN.