Kim Strassel On GOP War Powers & Libya

I typically find Kim Strassel's editorials in the Wall Street Journal to be on the mark. But her recent piece about House Republicans and Libya, entitled The GOP's War Powers Opportunism, was quite wide of that mark.

Echoed by today's third Journal staff editorial, Strassel basically blames House GOP members for failing to support Wonderboy's ill-conceived and poorly-explained Libyan adventures, labeling this opportunistic.

I disagree.

What Strassel and others at the Journal fail to appreciate or acknowledge is that we don't really know who we're backing against Gadhafi. Back in March, I had lunch with an old friend who is culturally and hereditarily, but not religiously, Jewish. Even he backed Gadhafi against more extreme Arab fundamentalist rebels, suggesting we ask the Libyian dictator what he needed to kill the Muslim extremist seeking to overthrow him.

In occasional moments of lucidity, Strassel and the Journal staff admit that Wonderboy offered no compelling reason to risk American lives and money in Libya, then compounded that by saying NATO is running the show and, finally, we aren't really in combat.

This isn't about War Powers procedure anymore, but a serious lack of understanding of who we are backing if we oppose Gadhafi. It's no longer enough to say we want him out. What if the result is a rabidly-fundamentalist so-called democracy that wants Israel wiped off the map?

Until House members are provided more certain information assuring them that backing the Libyan rebels isn't going to create a Libyan Muslim fundamentalist, anti-American state, there's no harm or shame in simply stepping back and being neutral.

It's a fact that Wonderboy's administration chose to stick it's thumb in the GOP-held House's eye by failing to play along by the War Powers Act rules while insisting it need not, because the Act is unconstitutional. Instead, Wonderboy just flipped Congress the bird and went ahead without even attempting to build a consensus behind its policies and actions in Libya.

I don't think the House GOP is being cowardly nor opportunistic on Libya. Rather, they are behaving prudently in the face of a failure of leadership from the Oval Office, even as troops and money are squandered overseas without explanation.

What About Libya?

It's been almost a month since the US backed into its Libyan operation under NATO's flag. If memory serves, the US was going to be out of the action in a week.

So much for promises. But it's worse than that.

Not only does the US still have military personnel and assets at risk in Libya, but now it looks like Qaddafi won't be dislodged. Between truce talks and rumors of carving up the country into two zones, it's hard to argue that the NATO action has done much to cause the dictator to worry that he might actually have to flee.

I asked a friend last week what he would have done, were he president, in the case of Libya. Would he see the prospect of civilian slaughter, alone, as reason to intervene?

He would not. In fact, he noted the reports that Al Qaeda is heavily represented among the rebels, and suggested a much different action. He would have seen this as an opportunity to eliminate some of the anti-US terrorists in the Mideast, and offered to help Qaddafi to do so.

It's a radical alternative, to be sure. But it points up the inanity of our present situation. We're caught between aiding a dictator, or helping rebels who are likely, should they win, turn viciously anti-American.

Perhaps, absent a clear-cut choice that benefited the US, we should have simply stood aside and let the Libyans go about their civil war unaided.

The Libyan Conundrums

Wonderboy surely has landed himself in a mess by his non-, then mishandling of the Libyan situation.

Of course there is a wealth of opinion already written regarding his mis-steps. Here are the ones which most concern me.

To begin, it's not so much about his fiddling while the world burns. Rather, it's about his handling of the Libyan military involvement, especially vis a vis his statements as a candidate about such action.

By now, you've probably seen the video or read the words of Wonderboy, the candidate, castigating then-President Bush for his various military actions. Back then, the Illinois junior Senator claimed that a president had to approach Congress for authorization before taking any military action.

In reality, Wonderboy did something quite different. First, he made empty statements about Quadafi, while doing nothing to enforce that 'he must go.'

Then he allowed US forces to participate in the air actions this week, but with a minimal discussion with some Congressional members. Hardly notification or asking for authorization.

Next, from Brazil, Wonderboy stated that the sole reason for US military involvement was the overwhelming agreement by 'the international community,' that a country's leader was engaged in creating a human tragedy by turning his military on them.

Others quickly asked, rhetorically, about an arm's length list of similar situations in which, on those conditions, in which the US should also intervene. Iran, Syria and Zimbabwe were mentioned.

At this point, triangulating Wonderboy's statements and actions expose him as a blatant hypocrite and internationalist, a/k/a 'one worlder.' He's bypassed the Constitution and War Powers Act, contradicted his own promises while a candidate, but claimed that the UN and other nations can command US military involvement, whereas Congress need not be consulted.

All that is, and I think will be, toxic to his re-election efforts. As usual, his sanctimonious habit of claiming one position before the fact, then doing something else in the moment, mark him as fickle and, essentially, a liar.

The crowning piece, however, is the explicit disavowal of US leadership of the Libyan action, while committing US resources. Americans don't want to see US forces under foreign command. Yet that is what is being promised.

Add to that the dismay voters feel as Admiral Mullens indicates he doesn't know what the administration believes the mission and objections for the Libyan campaign are, and you have total confusion.

Instead of a tight, focused, explicable strategy for the Libyan involvement, we have vague, differing statements from various countries' leaders and military about what they are doing in Libya. The prospect of American military personnel and equipment being commanded by foreigners is an affront to Americans. Period.

I suspect Wonderboy's inability to actually make decisions, take risks, and function as the nation's chief executive will both haunt and, ultimately, cripple him.

More Shameful Behavior from the Administration Regarding Libya

I wrote this recent post last week bemoaning Wonderboy's inaction on Libya.

Then it became worse. By late last week, his intelligence chief had testified to Congress that it looked like Gadafi would remain in power.

What the hell is going on in the White House? How can we let this madman who's slaughtering his own people remain in power?

And, of course, as so many pundits immediately predicted, if you're a rebel, and you hear a spokesman for the US basically tell you you're going to lose, what hope have you?

This is unconscionable. By the time Wonderboy lets NATO or the UN decide to agree to a no-fly zone, it will be too late.

Instead of looking to the US as the beacon and friend of liberty and freedom, oppressed people around the globe will now know not to rely on the current administration for any help whatsoever.