For those keeping track, when Clinton went to war in the 1990s, he never received UN or Congressional approval.
When Bush went to war in the 2000s, he got Congressional approval both times, but UN approval only once.
Obama's war in Libya will be a first - he has UN approval, but not Congressional approval. Hey, it's a new decade. International opinion, not America's, is the one that matters to this White House.
However, Obama might have a hard time explaining his priorities in 2012. I suspect most Americans would argue Congressional approval is more important than the UN's.
If the Libyan no-fly zone lasts for several weeks, Obama may eventually have to go to Congress, because a 60-day military action would trigger the 1973 War Powers Act. The constitutionality of that Act can be debated at another time, however, in its 38 years, no president has challenged it. Obama might have been better off getting approval before the first air strikes (which still haven't begun yet - so, there might have been time for a quick vote - assuming he had the votes).
Appearances matter. Internationalists argued for years that lack of UN approval tainted the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Obama's lack of Congressional approval when there was time to get it, might hurt his re-election bid. After all, it looks as if the UN resolution against Libya persuaded Obama to go to war, when he had seemed perfectly willing to sit it out. Does Obama go to war when the UN tells him to?
No comments:
Post a Comment