Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Sun 03/20/2011 View Sat 03/19/2011 View Fri 03/18/2011 View Thu 03/17/2011 View Wed 03/16/2011 View Tue 03/15/2011 View Mon 03/14/2011
1
2011-03-20 Africa North
Crisis in Libya: U.S. bombs Qaddafi's airfields
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Oscar Spineck3066 2011-03-20 06:27|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [11130 views ]  Top

#1 Pounding his airfields and knocking down his tent won't put him out of action. It will take troops on the ground.
Posted by Besoeker on the road again 2011-03-20 07:16||   2011-03-20 07:16|| Front Page Top

#2 Hello! "troops on the ground" you know that and many of us know that and I hope O is not aware of that.
Posted by Dale 2011-03-20 09:06||   2011-03-20 09:06|| Front Page Top

#3 Just for grins and chuckles I took the wayback machine to see if bammer has commented on this sort of stuff before....

"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," - Barack Obama.


More of that hoppy changy thing.
Posted by AlanC 2011-03-20 09:09||   2011-03-20 09:09|| Front Page Top

#4 Oh, and for the other side of the equation here is Hillary from the same campaign trail interview...

the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action -- including any kind of strategic bombing -- against Iran without congressional authorization.

Seems like that corrupting power thingy just keeps on coming up, no?
Posted by AlanC 2011-03-20 09:13||   2011-03-20 09:13|| Front Page Top

#5 Actually, the Constitution never really addressed the issue specifically as at the time it was

1)expected that the Executive conduct military operations as necessary along its long western frontier against 'hostiles' without Congressional consent.

2)and Congress did not meet 365 days a year and that the Executive would handle anything needing immediate attention till they got back.

3)and following the experience as previous Englishmen and the Cromwellian Commonwealth, they kept the army and navy small to avoid getting involved in anything substantive.

What happened was the Second World War which left the US as the sole nation with the means and economy in the Western Alliance to conduct real military operations. We tried going back to 'normal' but when the Russian blockaded Berlin, America went into its first peacetime draft and the creation of a large standing military force for which the writers of the Constitution had wanted to avoid at all costs because of its historic record of creating political problems for the nations that followed that path. Ever since then Presidents have been involving that large military into events around the world and in the process centralizing more power in the Executive. Either you influence events, for good or bad, or you accept the consequences of what life, history and the world throw at you. If you choose the first option you get an ever growing imperial presidency. If you cut back your military so it can not be tossed into events, you sit back and accept the slings and arrows of outrageous fortunes, but you diminish the power of those who own and operate the central government. No one said life is fair.
Posted by Procopius2k 2011-03-20 10:10||   2011-03-20 10:10|| Front Page Top

#6 "No one said life is fair."

<.lefty whine>

But it's supposed to be! That's not fair!

<./lefty whine>
Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2011-03-20 10:17||   2011-03-20 10:17|| Front Page Top

#7 Crisis in Libya

It's almost comical the lengths Obama's media and cheerleaders have gone to avoid using the W-word.
Posted by DepotGuy 2011-03-20 11:21||   2011-03-20 11:21|| Front Page Top

#8 The mere wear and tear of the B2s costed over 1 millon dllar par plane. Compound with maintenance, fuel, pilot pay and the non-null risk of losing a 2 billion dollar airframe (1 chance in thousand that means an "insurance cost" of 1 million).
Posted by JFM 2011-03-20 11:36||   2011-03-20 11:36|| Front Page Top

#9 insurance cost is 2 millions of course.
Posted by JFM 2011-03-20 11:41||   2011-03-20 11:41|| Front Page Top

#10 Wouldn't it be nice if this was based on a rational cost/benefit analysis rather than a political calculation?
Posted by regular joe 2011-03-20 12:03||   2011-03-20 12:03|| Front Page Top

#11 Wouldn't it be nice if humans were capable of the rational cost/benefit analysis?
Posted by g(r)omgoru 2011-03-20 13:05||   2011-03-20 13:05|| Front Page Top

#12 Pounding his airfields and knocking down his tent won't put him out of action. It will take troops on the ground.

We do. They're called rebels and defectors.
Posted by gorb 2011-03-20 13:18||   2011-03-20 13:18|| Front Page Top

#13 I seem to recall that the President has the authority to conduct military action for up to six months without congressional approval. Men, please check me if I am wrong. Too busy to go book worm today.
Posted by newc 2011-03-20 13:50||   2011-03-20 13:50|| Front Page Top

#14 Newc,

The War Powers Act gives the Pres 60 days w/o Congressional Approval.

However, since the Constitution makes the Prez the COC, the War Powers Act is arguably unconstitutional.
Posted by Lord Garth 2011-03-20 14:48||   2011-03-20 14:48|| Front Page Top

#15 Every president since Nixon has stated that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional.

Yet none defy it.

Every time we've had any significant military action since 1974, presidents have taken care to honor the WPA -- either they've gotten approval (usually some sort of 'authorization for the use of force') or they've wound up the military operation (e.g., Grenada) in plenty of time so as not to trigger the WPA.

Bambi has his choice here: he could go to Congress, who would, I think, give him the necessary authorization, or he could wrap it up quickly (I think, without bookworming, that it is 90 days). If the latter increasingly looks problematic he could either cut and run or then go to the Congress.

The left-most half of the Dhimmicrats in Congress would vote 'no', but the rest, and most all except the Ron Paul Pubs, would vote 'yes'. So he'd get his authorization.

Whether he wants to be remembered as yet another president who went to war is on him.
Posted by Steve White 2011-03-20 14:56||   2011-03-20 14:56|| Front Page Top

#16 The War Powers Resolution also states,
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.


If you believe in the constitutionality and relevance of the WPR, which of these three conditions obtain in this instance? Or has The 0ne acted illegally?
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2011-03-20 15:00||   2011-03-20 15:00|| Front Page Top

#17 Gotcha. Thanks! I knew there was a time hack. The six month thing must have been something else.
Posted by newc 2011-03-20 15:15||   2011-03-20 15:15|| Front Page Top

#18 Speaker Boehner (love saying that) has said that he expects Obama to consult with Congress before going further than the initial attacks. Not criticizing the cruise missile attacks, etc. Just saying that he needs to consult before getting us in deeper
Posted by Frank G 2011-03-20 15:24||   2011-03-20 15:24|| Front Page Top

#19 Meanwhile, the US 5th fleet has left Bahrain supposedly on exercises with Oman, but with the unrest in Bahrain, it seems more like a contingency plan of avoiding being in port if SHTF. Iran is playing their hand in Bahrain quite well. We are way behind the power curve.
Posted by Alaska Paul 2011-03-20 16:18||   2011-03-20 16:18|| Front Page Top

#20 "We are way behind the power curve."

Just where Bambi, et al., want us. >:-(
Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2011-03-20 16:19||   2011-03-20 16:19|| Front Page Top

#21 I believe El Quaddafi has begun an effective psychological campaign. His letter to various leaders including "our son" is a master stroke.
He is his own man. This is a leader. He will sorely test the will of those against him. Syria is now helping him and Russia and China look sympathetic.
This could get ugly. The only way now to nip this in the bud would be assassination. Strong words from an armchair peanut gallery.
Posted by Dale 2011-03-20 18:53||   2011-03-20 18:53|| Front Page Top

00:06 JosephMendiola
23:58 vendaval
23:57 trailing wife
23:48 vendaval
23:47 lex
23:40 JosephMendiola
23:34 trailing wife
23:30 JosephMendiola
23:28 trailing wife
23:25 Secret Master
23:22 Barbara Skolaut
23:16 trailing wife
23:13 lex
22:48 trailing wife
22:36 Shieldwolf
21:59 Fi
21:57 rammer
21:56 Alaska Paul
21:51 Bobby
21:43 Bobby
21:41 Fi
21:37 Alaska Paul
21:33 Secret Master
21:33 Bobby
Merry-Go-Blog










Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com