A Reasoned Discussion

by Keith Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, March 30, 2011

The Middle East region has been difficult to navigate in terms of foreign policy. U.S. oil interests are rich there and a sense of animosity that America has played the aggressor there for its own gain has infected many Arab nations. The United States’ dysfunctional relationship with Israel has added to the difficulty, and mistrust of western agendas is rampant. The recent unrest in Libya has added to the complexity of the dynamic.

Emboldened by the protests in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere, citizens and grassroots rebel forces stood for the first time against power-mad dictator Muammar Gaddafi. Retaliation was swift and brutal. Claiming at times that the protestors were drugged by al Qaeda, Gaddafi ordered his troops to fire on the opposition, killing hundreds. As the international community warned Gaddafi of sanctions, he sent air forces to gun down his own people.

During this process, the United States and the United Nations declared an imposed no-fly zone over Libya to protect its citizens. Gaddafi seemed to comply by declaring a cease fire, and then escalated attacks against protesting Libyans.

On March 17, in answer to Gaddafi’s defiance of an earlier resolution, the U.N. authorized use of air strikes to enforce the no-fly zone. The United States, in compliance with our obligations as a member and security council power, led a coalition of international forces, including those of Arab nations, to support this resolution. This enforcement was executed with the use of U.S.-made Tomahawk missiles and collaborative air support.

Now, there is a great deal of criticism over the way the Obama administration handled the crisis, and the process in which the commitment of military force was enacted.

There is definitely a legitimate discussion to be made about any such action. Especially in the sensitive Middle East. I, for one, am as leery of committing military personnel and dollars now as I was during the previous administration. I heard a recent analogy that each missile launched at a building in Gaddafi’s compound or other strategic target represented the cost of our nation’s head start program, which will be cut, under conservative budget proposals. A couple weeks ago, I ranted in this column about the reluctance to cut military spending, while harping about growing national deficits. I stand by that position on military action and I think any time we commit men and women to service we must carefully weigh these and other consequences.

That said, in order for the discussion to move forward responsibly, we must apply standards that transcend political affiliation.
A frustration for me over the past few weeks is the outcry on the right against the way the current administration is handling the situation. The hypocrisy is sometimes surprising in its stark contrast to previous statements and opinions leveled.

Conservatives who were military hawks when George W. Bush was proposing engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan are suddenly appalled that we are involved in enforcing the U.N.’s resolution. Those same voices are now dovish and isolationist in their criticism of Obama. While I’m glad to see some restraint militarily, I would have preferred it when Bush II was racing to invade Iraq under the false pretense of non-existent WMD (weapons of mass destruction).

My brother Gordon is in this camp, as is Republican House Speaker John Boehner. He was so up in arms over the way Obama handled the situation, that he issued a public statement and then penned a strongly-worded criticism asking for clarity and a defined goal. It seems that the White House briefing given to Boehner and other congressional leaders would have been the perfect opportunity to ask those questions. Of course, a published letter proclaiming that the sitting president mishandled the affair is much more beneficial politically. It is disturbing that the letter implied that Congress had not been involved at all in the process (and disturbing that the media failed to stress this fact in any way that would dispel the myth).

Boehner’s mention of the cost of the operation was interesting given the Republicans’ stance during the last decade. When Bush was frittering away the national treasury on his war of choice in Iraq, they seemed to believe that there was an endless supply of funds. Now, interestingly, we can’t afford military action in the Middle East. I say it’s about time the GOP saw the light.

Another oft-repeated claim is that the administration refuses to call the action a “war”. This has been used by both sides to protest Obama’s strategy. Democratic Senator Dennis Kucinich went as far as calling it an impeachable offense to commit forces without congressional approval. Well, as much as I agree that proper authorization should be required before putting our sons and daughters in harm’s way, the current operation does not qualify as a declaration of war.

The president has committed U.S. forces to join a coalition of forces to this mission. However, the mission has a finite goal of providing protection to Libyan citizens and is authorized under the auspices the U.N.

The declaration of war has been problematic in light of the Constitution. And, by some standards, every U.S. military operation since World War II has been unconstitutional.

In September of 2001, following the 9/11 attacks, then-President Bush effectively declared a metaphorical “war on terror”. This broad and open-ended war had no clear objective or metric for success. Yet the president was afforded a great deal of authority (under the approval of Congress) to execute a broad range of military aggression against real and perceived threats. Many of the conservatives who supported this unfettered power, hypocritically question Obama’s role as Commander in Chief. Obama is not acting under any such authority (either conditional or unconditional).

I think it is important to have a dialog about Libya, just as it will be important to openly discuss other emerging hot spots in the Middle East. However, we must be consistent in our standards and reasonable in our approach. The United States is in danger of forfeiting democratic compromise to political contest.