War? What war?

Apparently, judging by the headlines, we are no longer engaged in "kinetic military action" in Libya. Not a peep from the World section of the U-T. In the WSJ, the only reference is that the Libyan rebels have rejected the African Union peace plan. But to think that an actual war involving U.S. forces is going on? Unthinkable. The President obviously would have notified the Congress. From his 2007 candidate interview with the Boston Globe.

Q: In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?

A: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.

Meanwhile the Department of Defense official web site has this to say today about our actions in Libya.

NATO aircraft are striking with care and precision while minimizing the danger to civilians, Rasmussen said.

“This is in stark contrast to the pro-Gadhafi forces,” he said, “who are besieging their own cities and shelling city centers.”

Since April 9, NATO aircraft have flown almost 300 sorties, the secretary general said, destroying 49 tanks, nine armored personnel carriers, three anti-aircraft guns and four large ammo bunkers.

Meanwhile, Gadhafi’s forces continue offensive operations against rebels in eastern Libya. The no-fly zone has blunted the effects of the regime force’s attacks, but has not ended them.

“We’ve talked all along about the nature of a no-fly zone and how that restricts the regime’s forces, but that doesn’t stop them,” Lapan said.

NATO officials said the Libyans are using schools and mosques as shields for their armored forces. The proximity to civilians means these targets are off-limits for NATO.

The DOD comptroller estimates the cost of U.S. operations in Libya to be $40 million per month. Total U.S. cost from the beginning of operations in mid-March through April 4 was $608 million, Lapan said.

American forces are not conducting strike missions in Libya. U.S. forces are supporting NATO with air-to-air refueling, reconnaissance and surveillance capabilities and unmanned aerial vehicle support. U.S. ships are also participating in the arms blockade off Libya in the Mediterranean.

How about that? A non-war coming in at only $608 million so far? We haven't even hit a billion, clearly chump change. Maybe that's the new interpretation of the war power resolution, it's not a war if it doesn't cost over a billion. Of course, knowing a little bit about DOD accounting, I personally don't trust that figure, but go figure, it's not really the point. And somehow engaging in reconnaissance, surveillance, refueling and UAV support isn't warfare. Tell that to your local Air Force recruiter.



The Congress refuses to assert its authority, so no one has standing to take this constitutional issue to the supreme court. If the Republicans were serious about their reading of the constitution at the start of the term, they would be holding hearings and holding up spending on this war until the President complied with the law.

Picture at top taken from fanpop, a fan art site, shows a relaxed President ready to roll up his sleeves and take his Commander in Chief responsibilities seriously during times of non-war.

The Commander in Chief and Afghanistan

I will be the first to admit to some prejudices about the political nature of war and the need for both a thoughtful strategy and civilian control of the military. I often quote Clausewitz' rhetorical remark about war being politics carried out by other means. However, the President, as Commander in Chief, is playing a dangerous game in Afghanistan. To set the stage let me quote what the President said in March (only six months ago):

So let me be clear: al Qaeda and its allies – the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks – are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the U.S. homeland from its safe-haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban – or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged – that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.

The President was correct. Meanwhile, the situation on the ground has worsened, but not yet deteriorated, contrary to what the NYT is reporting. General McChrystal is asking for more troops to prevent Afghanistan reaching a tipping point, where the war can not be won without huge expenditure of blood and treasure. Sound familiar? Indeed, it was allowing the situation in Iraq get to a dangerous tipping point, starting with a failure to control the looting after the initial defeat of the Hussein regime that caused that effort to drag on and cost

But the President and his defenders are now whining that he needs time to re-think the strategy. But I ask, what has changed strategically since March, for crying out loud? The only difference is that we underestimated the troop level needed to carry the fight to the enemy. How in the world does that change the geopolitical nature of the threat that Obama so clearly spelled out in March? The fact that the elections appear tainted changes nothing in the assessment. (I mention this because it is the only semi-plausible argument in an entire NY Times article on the President's decision making process. Note the prominence given to Joe Biden's strategic thinking as well.)

The President is supposed to LEAD! By dithering and hand wringing, poll watching and whining that he needs more time, he demoralizes the troops in the field and strengthens the position of the Taliban. Our Islamofascist enemies read the news just as much as we do. They are probably using Obama's lack of decision to rally their troops, telling them that an extra push now could achieve victory. That might be correct.

History is full of examples where insurgencies won by outlasting a larger more well equipped forces, starting with our own American Revolution. In some cases, perhaps, it is not in the long term best interests of the more powerful nation to stay in the fight. Some argue that Vietnam is one such example. I do not necessarily agree, but if Democrats and Republicans alike take the President at his word about the consequences of failure in Afghanistan, then he should have sent more troops yesterday.

Did you guys hear the one about Obama concentrating on al Qaeda instead of the Taliban?