I wonder if the President and maybe some in uniform think that the term military intervention is anything other than war?

Bluntly speaking, any military intervention is embarking on either limited or unlimited war. . .period! Our President had better understand, along with everyone else, that neither type of war is a mutually exclusive type, but exists on a scale. . .and that scale is its relation to the unlimited means our or any other country has available.

That is to say, the unlimited means defines one end of the scale while the limited end has no absolute value. . . it can approach but not reach a zero sum or war would not exist.

Clausewitz stated, "The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish . . . the kind of war on which they are embarking."

The term limited only has meaning in its relation to the unlimited means a country has available. The unlimited means define one end of the scale while the limited end has no absolute value; it can approach but not reach zero or war would not exist

Again, I quote Herr Clausewitz, who stated, "The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish the kind of war on which they are embarking.

Perhaps the president actually doesn't understand military intervention there is only limited versus unlimited wars which is what military

Anglo-American problematic assumption that precedent=law and Public Law 107-40 an ongoing gift of the the Bush II Admin made possible by a country and Congress gone infantile in the aftermath of 9/11.

That seems to be the basis of the Obama Admin's argument for its ability to wage war anywhere.

It seems that only economics, that uncompromising mistress, will stop this bellicose leviathan.

The UK government managed to bring the matter before the House of Commons way back on March 21 and get it was approved.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/obama-libya-war-congress-authority-war-powers.html

"The Obama administration is spending almost $9.5 million every single day to blow things up in Libya because the president has determined that is in the country's national interest, this country's national interest, not Libya's. You may not have noticed the $392,542 flowing out of the national treasury every hour, day and night, since those first $1.5 million Tomahawks flashed from the launch tubes back on March 19. But Libya's dictator Moammar Kadafi has. Not enough to quit, mind you, because he can hide while his troops do the dying and killing."

Support the intervention, support its rationale.

The Obama administration's decision to intervene in Libya's civil war involved a substantial amount of bad faith right from the start. Officially, America intervened to stop a massacre of the civilian population of Benghazi; actually, the intervention was intended to overthrow the Libyan government.

The rationale being given now by the administration is no less than consistent, intellectually, with the decision to intervene in the first place. American forces are not engaged in combat at the present moment, only in combat support activities (and possibly in kinetic combat support activities using unmanned aerial platforms, which are officially secret and therefore don't count). Should American forces become engaged in direct combat operations in the future, the administration will still be in compliance with the War Powers Resolution, because the 60-day termination provision gives it a window to do so.

Under the administration's current reasoning, it could resume air raids on Libyan targets for a few days, then stop them, then start them again, and always stay within the 60 day window provided by the War Powers Resolution's termination provision. Combat support operations, no matter how essential to the NATO air campaign or how closely coordinated with the Libyan rebels, definitely do not count in the calculus of War Powers compliance unless American forces are firing at Libyan government forces. They may not count unless the Libyans are firing back.

Of course the Obama administration's argument is made in naked bad faith, but so was the decision to intervene in the first place. That decision was justified by its supporters at the time because it "felt right" to them. Now some of them are talking about laugh tests and how the Bush administration justified torture.

The President and his associates treat Congress with open contempt. How do casual supporters of the Libyan intervention outside the government think the administration sees them?

If bombing Libya is such a good idea, and I think a fair case could have been made that it is/was, then the Administration has the legal, constitutional, and political motivation to put the matter to a vote of the Congress.

The fact that this Administration makes the most transparently ridiculous arguments that bombing Tripoli is not "hostilities" is commentary more on how this Administration views the other party. Ergo: the President describes the Republicans as his "enemies" while real bad actors such at the theocrat running Iran is described by him with honorifics like "Supreme Leader."

except for armed drones; we are not bombing - supposedly. Now, we are only in a support role. BTW, I always question these cost figures. I only want to know the cost of material and repairs which exceed the normal optempo of the forces involved. Most of these tankers and ships are underway anyway, so what are we doing that is unique to this operation? Are we giving our NATO allies bombs and rockets or are they buying them? They had best be buying them - cheap bastards.

Why hasn't the administration used the treaty argument? By law, our UN and NATO Treaty obligations supersede our Constitution and any national laws. (When we want them to.)

Don't abdicate what you later covet.

Greneda, Haiti...I don't see anything inconsistent here. The scope and duration are limited. We're talking armed drones. Different than bombing Waziristan?

I believe ratification of NATO made it congruous with the War Powers Act. If congress pulls us out, the injury to NATO would be huge (wavering Latvia anyone?).

Capt. N, the only credible threat to any US admin, (besides a zipper malfunction, or red-handed burglary) is the other party.

Current opposition leaders declared (with fanfare) that removal of the current elected executive officers was their patriotic duty and mission. Since our conduct of the Libya war began in a highly politicised environment, it would be foolish for this admin to behave otherwise.

The constitutional discussion I hear, from both elected political poles, says that the War Powers Act actually expands Presidential war powers, codifying the executive's long-asserted right (privilege? duty?) to make war without Congressional participation.

It's Congress' constitutional duty to protect MY rights by defending their war powers turf. In practice, it's all too easy to for the executive's fundraising leadership and federal financial leverage over members districts to overwhelm most representative's weak devotion to a constitutional contract. Especially since the war powers have consistently been strong-armed, since Tom Jefferson.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all *Treaties* made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Supreme law of the Land. Yes, that's followed by reference to the states, but Supreme be supreme. As in "The Supremes."

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all *Treaties* made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Supreme law of the Land. Yes, that's followed by reference to the states, but Supreme be supreme. As in "The Supremes."

For a definition of war, one might go back closer to the founder's time... say to Johnson's or Webster's definitions for war. Johnson's, which is quite serviceable, "The exercise of violence under sovereign command against withstanders." To argue it otherwise is nihilistic to language.

1) No president has admitted the Constitutionality of the WPR, and almost all have stretched compliance with it. (Bush II and Iraq was an exception--but it's not as if getting Congressional authorization in that case was some great victory for virtue and right--which only goes to show you can't guarantee good and honest government by mere obedience to legal forms.)

2) In a case such as this, with Libya, the WPR conflicts with the treaty obligations of the US, and with the Constitution in Art. VI (as noted above). President's need to be careful about messing with that--treaties are approved by the Senate, not by Congress--submitting an action in fulfillment of a treaty to all of Congress would

3) According to our definition of "hostilities" being used here, our activities in Yemen and Pakistan would also require authorization by Congress. I don't think any president wants to set that precedent.

I suspect those last two concerns are front and center in the minds of the President's lawyers and advisers. Furthermore, I suspect this is exactly the sort of situation Alexander Hamilton was planning for.

I am not 100% on either side of the argument. But I would like to put a few points out there, which puts me to side with the President on this one. Though of course - nobody wants to have just one opinion present and having accountability on issues of governance is essential to good governance.

1. Is it a real war? If it is, then why not declare wars on Pakistan, Yemen, and any other country drones will operate in? Whoever thinks that USA is in war with Libya, can as easily claim that USA is in war with Pakistan. (which might explain some of the emotions on the Pakistani's side...)

Back to Libya, though. Due to considerations that the state of Libya is in a further disarray, it is not acting against a specific government per say, like you would in a war. It was a 'fascist regime',as Gaddafi's own appointed officials acknowledged. I can't say that the actions are against Libyan government, since the defections are too prominent. I see it is against Gaddafi, but not against Libyan institutions or governance.

2. Will there be boots on the ground? Nope. There will be no boots on the ground, no tanks and no permanent intervention inside of it. Any talk of "war" might misconstrue the statement to imply as if military's role in it is larger than it actually is. Bureaucracy is a small-moving process, let's not get too ahead of ourselves.

In retrospect, DoD might call it a war, because that is what they have been taught to look for. It is their job descriptions, after all. A somewhat slight spice of old-school could be playing a role too.

3. Is it really against Libyan government and its people? Nah. Not really - it is against officials carrying out crimes against humanity. Their governing structures or institutions are not functioning, otherwise they would have stopped any criminals in their own government.

Any current actions are after a series of "crimes-against-humanity" officials, starting with Gaddafi. The list is somewhere between 3 and 30 people.

I believe that Gaddafi and company has to be brought up to a court system - either within his homeland or ICC. This is in line with what most of his own officials probably agree to.

I just do not see how this adds up to a war effort. Does it really justify the classification of "war" - even though it obviously has a military component in it? I think it does pass the laughing test.

If they send the Navy, Air Force, and SOCOM to arrest the criminals it is probably a war. If this was crime and punishment they'd send FBI. If you think this is just NATO trying to arrest the COL and a few of his closest family and henchmen; you should test that hypothesis by climbing in a tank, or Grad Rocket Launcher, and driving around in Western Libya. See if THAT meets the laugh test. You ought to be OK (there being no war) because this is just some law enforcement action to arrest the COL.

As far as there being no "boots on the ground" it is probably time to bring the DNI and CG SOCOM into closed Congressional hearings and let them hold up their right hands and testify to that.

Arguing that Libya is not a war makes me think the White House may have rehired John Yoo, it looks like his kind of reasoning.

Sometimes the gloves really have to come off.

Somebody (Keegan I think in Face of Battle) wrote "Possession is 9/10s of the Law and the Infantry are the Bailiff's men!" I don't think he was being literal.

I don't know if these international courts help or hurt. I am definitely not ready to spend any more Trillions of dollars US does not have so the ICC has somebody to put in the dock.

I was going to ask you if they tried Ceau?escu before or after they executed him but I guess it was "near simultaneously" as they say in the business (he certainly didn't make it to the Hague). I think the ICC and the no amnesty anywhere policy "feels good" but it is more likely to result in every smart dictator for life trying "Ceau?escu gambit" and hanging on until last extreme. Better to be dragged out by your heels. You don't see COL Q or his kids caving in yet!?!?!