The War Powers Act

The War Powers Act of 1973 requires US presidents to get congressional consent before committing the military to armed conflict. But almost every president since WWII has ignored this Act.

Under the Act, the President can only send combat troops into battle or into areas where ‘imminent’ hostilities are likely, for 60 days without either a declaration of war by Congress or a specific Congressional mandate. …

The Act, however, does not specify what Congress can do if the President refuses to comply with the Act.

(New York Times, March 28, 1984)

President Obama is just the latest offender. He didn’t even seek congressional consent before sending the US military to Libya in a futile attempt to oust strongman Muammar Gaddafi.

The War in Libya

Unsurprisingly, Congress is trying to assert its authority by holding a bona fide debate. And this debate is generating more fireworks than the actual bombing of Libya, with Congressional Republicans leading calls for Obama to comply with the Act.

Obama is already in breach. So, Congress must use its powers to compel compliance. But don’t hold your breath.

Meanwhile, politicians are hurling rhetorical grenades from both sides. But keep these two points in mind:

1. A scorned Congress passed this Act in the wake of undeclared wars in Korea and Vietnam. It wanted to remind the president that only Congress has the authority to declare war; and
2. The last time Congress exercised its duty to declare war was during World War II. Yet, presidents have waged many wars since then, most notably in Grenada, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Why is Congress trying to limit Obama’s authority?

As indicated above, this debate reeks of arbitrariness, if not racism. After all, Obama is only doing what other presidents have done – with nary a Congressional peep.

Even so, Congress can only do one thing to check Obama: cut off funds for the war in Libya. But nobody believes Congress has the cajones to do that.

Yet here’s Obama’s tortured reasoning for ignoring the Act:

US operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, US casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors.

(Los Angeles Times, June 21, 2011)

This is true. But it posits an untenable definition of war. Obama is saying this is not war because the US is only launching missiles. He should tell that to the Libyans on the receiving end of those missiles, especially since they have no ability to return fire.

Presidents at war

Despite Obama’s deflection, America is as much at war in Libya as it is in Afghanistan and Iraq. And “victory,” in this case, seems doomed to be every bit as elusive and pyrrhic.

Mind you, I don’t blame Obama for not seeking congressional consent. I just think he could have done a better job informing Congress about his hostile intentions. Moreover, he only has to cite the precedent his Republican predecessor set to expose the hypocrisy afoot among Congressional Republicans.

After all, George W. Bush spent much of his presidency launching missiles into Pakistan from predator drones operated by US troops in Nevada and Virginia. Yet, his disregard for the Act never received this congressional scrutiny.

At least Bill Clinton could argue that he never breached the Act because his wars — in Sudan and, yes, even Afghanistan — never exceeded 90 days. Never mind the wag-the-dog suspicions that dogged his wars.

Remember, he wanted to divert attention from his affair with Monica Lewinsky. That was the prevailing suspicion. Still, Clinton stands out because he got Senate approval for bombing the former Yugoslavia.

Obama should have called Congress’s bluff by forcing them to defund his war effort. That would have been more honest and principled. That would have been more honest and principled. Instead, he’s insulting our intelligence with nonsensical legal justifications.

Meanwhile, Obama is also waging armed conflict in Pakistan and Yemen. So, you might wonder why Congress is raising the War Powers Act only about the conflict in Libya.

Alas, the answer is sheer political expediency, if not hypocrisy.