President Obama has ripped up the US constitution for Nato's ill-considered Libyan adventure. Congress must restore sense
Share161
Comments (237)
Dennis Kucinich
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 6 July 2011 14.00 BST
Article history
France has confirmed it has been arming Libyan rebels, in contravention of a UN arms embargo. Photograph: Ricardo Garcia Vilanova/AFP/Getty Images
This week, I am sponsoring legislation in the United States Congress that will end US military involvement in Libya for the following reasons:
First, the war is illegal under the United States constitution and our War Powers Act, because only the US Congress has the authority to declare war and the president has been unable to show that the US faced an imminent threat from Libya. The president even ignored his top legal advisers at the Pentagon and the department of justice who insisted he needed congressional approval before bombing Libya.
Second, the war has reached a stalemate and is unwinnable without the deployment of Nato ground troops, effectively an invasion of Libya. The whole operation was terribly ill-considered from the beginning. While Nato supports the Benghazi-based opposition (situated in the oil-rich north-east), there is little evidence that the opposition has support of the majority of Libyans. The leading opposition group, the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (which had reportedly been backed by the CIA in the 1980s), should never have launched an armed civil war against the government if they had no chance absent a massive Nato air campaign and the introduction of Nato troops. Their reckless actions, encouraged by western political, military and intelligence interests, created the humanitarian crisis that was then used to justify the Nato war campaign.
Third, the United States cannot afford it. The US cost of the mission is projected to soon reach more than $1bn, and we are already engaged in massive cutbacks of civil services for our own people.
It is not surprising that a majority of Republicans, Democrats and independents alike think the US should not be involved in Libya.
This war is misguided. An invasion would be a disaster. Nato already is out of control, using a UN mandate allowing for protection of civilians as the flimsy pretext for an unauthorised mission of regime change through massive violence. In a just world, the Nato commander would be held responsible for any violations of international law. As a means of continuing the civil war, Nato member France and coalition ally Qatar have both admitted shipping weapons to Libya, in open violation of the United Nations arms embargo.
In the end, the biggest casualty of this game of nations will be the legitimacy of the UN, its resolutions and mandates, and international rule of law. This condition must be reversed. The ban on arms supplies to Libya must be enforced, not subverted by Nato countries. The US must cease its illegal and counterproductive support for a military resolution now.
The US Congress must act to cut off funds for the war because there is no military solution in Libya. Serious negotiations for a political solution must begin to end the violence and create an environment for peace negotiations to fulfil the legitimate, democratic aspirations of the people. A political solution will become viable when the opposition understands that regime change is the privilege of the Libyan people, not of Nato.
***
Comments in chronological order (Total 236 comments)
Jabsco
6 July 2011 2:06PM
First, the war is illegal under the United States constitution and our War Powers Act, because only the US Congress has the authority to declare war
Going to need to stop you right there Dennis, we all know the United States Congress doesn't have the balls to declare war, in fact the last time you did it was World War II. If you are going to make that argument you would need to declare war on Iraq and Afghanistan.
MarkT
6 July 2011 2:06PM
Excellent. Absoluterly spot on. But will Obama pay any attention - that is the question
IGrumble
6 July 2011 2:07PM
Does One hear the sound of the Haliburtony Oil Corporate Army of Lawyers thundering towards Libya. After all, Nation Building will include 'Looking After' those Oil assets of Libya, and who can do this better but the 'Hallyburtonies'..... (all alleged of course).
Oh yes, where can we put the Colonel Quadaffieduckflie... oh yes, Dear Old Blighty of course... they will take the World Rubbish and Criminals....
'Omin Rites'.......!!!
MacRandall
6 July 2011 2:10PM
Uh, Denny?
Rep. Kucinich takes the side of Syria’s murderous dictator
“President Bashar al-Assad cares so much about what is taking place in Syria . . . and everybody who meets him can be certain of this.” It could be that another quotation attributed to him, that “President al-Assad is highly loved and appreciated by the Syrians,” was a “mistranslation,” or a reflection of “the degree of appreciation and affection [the] state-sponsored media has” for the president, as a statement from Mr. Kucinich’s office delicately put it.
Sounds to me like you got some 'splainin to do as well.
bigfacedog
6 July 2011 2:10PM
I agree with this. The intervention in Libya is confused. It is hard to pick out the western interests involved in supporting one side over the other as Gadaffi was not a threat to the West and the 'rebels' are an unknown force.
If the criteria was nastiness of the regime, then Syria would be a better choice to bomb with potentially far greater strategic gain.
I am against any kind of 'regime change' unless that regime is clearly carrying out a genocide against its own people. In other circumstances one has to use economic power to isolate cruel tyrants. The other issue is an explicit exportation of terrorism in which case it is legitimate self defence.
So far the 3 recent interventions by Nato have been wrong headed and would have been far better to have been replaced by one big intervention in Iran. I am not saying I even support that - but if it were a testing ground for bombs we wanted then Iran would at least be a deserving case.
Jabsco
6 July 2011 2:11PM
Dennis, I will donate to and volunteer for your reelection campaign if you come BTL and debate this whole ordeal. You could even get a staffer to pretend to be you.
The thing is, I agree with you, but if you want to say Libya is a game of nations and unwinnable stalemate, I think you need to remove all troops from Afghanistan too by your own logic.
youtubeo
6 July 2011 2:13PM
Trying to restore the constitution has had a recent surge in popularity.
War declarations do not need to be in the style of 1941.
But there must be a firm vote and a congress that takes charge.
President Obama should of been a constitutional president, but he isn't, he has so far failed.
Greenways
6 July 2011 2:13PM
Why wouldn't the US back a UN resolution to protect civilians? What we need to worry about is not that Obama did that but that NATO is reinterpreting that resolution to its own self-serving ends which are more to do with propping up the Gadaffi regime without Gaddaffi, regime change that menaces Tripoli or partioning/dismembering the country.
MacRandall
6 July 2011 2:13PM
IGrumble
6 July 2011 2:07PM
Does One hear the sound of the Haliburtony Oil Corporate Army of Lawyers thundering towards Libya. After all, Nation Building will include 'Looking After' those Oil assets of Libya, and who can do this better but the 'Hallyburtonies'..... (all alleged of course).
You mean like they thundered into Afghanistan to build that pipeline and thundered into Iraq to steal all that oil? It's all over the news ya' know.
jonappleseed
6 July 2011 2:14PM
Jabs
Bush sought and gained congressional approval for both iraq and afghanistan. Many prominent liberals, as you know, voted for those resolutions, senator clinton not least among them.
It may not have been a technical 'declartion of war' but the congress was consulted and did authorize the use of force.
I think Dennis is right here.
IvyLeague
6 July 2011 2:16PM
So pull out and sit back and watch Gaddafi slaughter tens of thousands of his opposition supporters?
peeps99
6 July 2011 2:16PM
I wonder if anyone here in the UK will start referring to Libya as 'Cameron's war', as many do about Iraq being 'Blair's war'.
Jabsco
6 July 2011 2:19PM
jonappleseed -
And I completely agree with what Dennis is saying, but if he's going to invoke the Congressional Constitutional authority to declare war as a reason to defund the Libyan operation, I think other formal declarations of war need to be made.
9milerancher
6 July 2011 2:20PM
What Kucinich is proposing is the end to interventionism. In some respects, this Libyan affair and Obama's willingness to allow the US to be dragged into a civil war in North Africa might well be the straw that . . .
If that is indeed the case, international organizations could very well become obsolete, with a concurrent rise in nationalism,etc.
The law of unintended consequences has not been repealed.
Hey Jabs.
Jabsco
6 July 2011 2:21PM
Hey 9mile, great to see you!
drabacus
6 July 2011 2:22PM
And I thought they were all crazies across the pond. Bravo Mr Kucinich! Obama really has been a sorry excuse for a democrat (lower case) when it comes to foreign wars
BrianWhit
6 July 2011 2:26PM
Hard to take anything Mr Kucinich says seriously after his visit to Syria.
Nihilistoffhismeds92
6 July 2011 2:29PM
Mr. Kucinich:
Thank you for your article.
And how is the tooth?
Heymat, terrified of sandwich incidents.
CarefulReader
6 July 2011 2:35PM
Does anybody seriously think that Gaddafi could've survived for this long if he was fighting the rebels, NATO, and the majority of his population at the same time?
It seems obvious that the majority of Libyans don't support the rebels' and NATO's war.
pretzelberg
6 July 2011 2:37PM
MarkT
But will Obama pay any attention - that is the question.
Presumably he isn't - hence the author being reduced to having the piece published here.
squawk7500
6 July 2011 2:40PM
where were all these guys when bush was dragging th usa into thy abysm of iraq and afghanistan?
mattseaton
6 July 2011 2:40PM
@ Jabsco:
Going to need to stop you right there Dennis, we all know the United States Congress doesn't have the balls to declare war, in fact the last time you did it was World War II. If you are going to make that argument you would need to declare war on Iraq and Afghanistan.
Good observation, Jabsco; but isn't that the very point Kucinich is making here – that a line needs to be drawn in the sand to reassert a measure of democratic control over the executive on the decision to make war? The technical legal dispute anyway is over the definition of what constitutes 'hostilities', no – not a formal declaration of war?
@ BrianWhit:
Hard to take anything Mr Kucinich says seriously after his visit to Syria.
Actually, I have to disagree. If scores of Syrian oppositionists can sit down in a Syrian government-sponsored meeting to discuss new political, democratic arrangements for the country, despite the repression elsewhere, I don't see why a US congressman can't go on a fact-finding mission there. There's no travel ban, wideranging sanctions, or diplomatic boycott that he broke.
Or are you saying that all those Syria opposition figures are quislings too?
Amateurtheatrics
6 July 2011 2:40PM
It it just me of is an American saying
The leading opposition group, the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (which had reportedly been backed by the CIA in the 1980s), should never have launched an armed civil war against the government if they had no chance absent a massive Nato air campaign and the introduction of Nato troops.
on the 6th of July a good definition of irony
demonrho
6 July 2011 2:40PM
I used to respect Kucinich for his stand on progressive domestic issues. But he has decided to jump in bed with the right wing and become a professional apologist for butchers like Gaddafi and Assad. Dennis, do yourself a favor and go back to spotting flying saucers.
astrogardener
6 July 2011 2:42PM
Obama is only the guy reading the autocue, a puppet.
Who are his advisors, and the people they work for?
Uncover that little nest of vipers and the real agenda unfolds.
Until then, the munition man gets richer and the rest of us get poorer, or if you're really unlucky, bombed.
ilovemytshirt
6 July 2011 2:42PM
Hard to take anything Mr Kucinich says seriously after his visit to Syria.
Well done, BrianWhit - you said it!
No further comment necessary really - except to say that the Libyan rebels have broken any perceived 'stalemate' and are on their way to Tripoli as I write...
ilovemytshirt
6 July 2011 2:45PM
Wow! Now there's an intriguing prospect - two Guardian editors sparring on a CiF blog...
dangor
6 July 2011 2:47PM
Dennis Kucinich is certainly the most likable politician in the US. Too bad I cannot vote there.
Chewtoy
6 July 2011 2:53PM
Apparently Osama bin Laden thought Al Qaeda needed a brand make over. With all this rhetoric about "Libyan rebels" and photo-ops in the media, his wish became western command.
Achilles0200
6 July 2011 2:56PM
The US Congress must act to cut off funds for the war because there is no military solution in Libya.
Clearly all parties to the conflict think otherwise!
ilovemytshirt
6 July 2011 2:57PM
IvyLeague
So pull out and sit back and watch Gaddafi slaughter tens of thousands of his opposition supporters?
That's absolutely right - the only way civilians are ever gonna be anywhere near protected is when the grand-delusional sociopath, Muammar Muhammad al-Qaddafi is effectively neutralised. And after his recent terror threats, that now includes civilians right across Europe.
Zoonosis
6 July 2011 2:57PM
this war exposes just how cynical our government and politicians are. numerous countries in africa have had years of violence with little or no intervention however when it is an oil rich country, using british weapons against the uprisers and with a one of our most detested terrorists living there we invade within days of the violence protecting both our oil and affording the government the opportunity to spin the fact that it was our weapons used in the oppression.
GRRRRR!!!!!!!!
donafugata
6 July 2011 3:00PM
Where America goes, Britain will follow.
I am delighted to hear of this prospective legislation and wish the project the very best of luck.
It is indeed an illegal war and an unwinnable one.
I should like to see immediate withdrawal from Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq and anywhere else we have no right to be.
These idiotic interventions are killing and maiming the fighting men and women, costing a fortune and creating yet more refugees.
The old days of imperialism are over and the people of the Middle East are quite capable of determining their own future.
MarkMaruyama
6 July 2011 3:00PM
So pull out and sit back and watch Gaddafi slaughter tens of thousands of his opposition supporters?
Gaddafi is fighting an well-armed rebellion, not peaceful demonstrators with banners. He has done what any other leader would have done in that situation.
One of the most frustrating things I personally have found about this conflict is the glaring lack of background information with any substance coming through the popular UK news sources.
Exactly who are the rebels?
What popular support do they have?
What popular support does Gaddafi have?
Were the claims of Gaddafi bombing (with fighter jets) demonstrators sustantive?
Why is NATO involved at all?
LittleRichardjohn
6 July 2011 3:01PM
Second, the war has reached a stalemate and is unwinnable without the deployment of Nato ground troops, effectively an invasion of Libya.
In fact, NATO is hardly trying, according to the NTC, the FF on the front line and the British government - who are aiming for a gradual, planned transition to civil administration.
You choose to call that a stalemate. But it is partly the result of US republican obstructionism. You are creating the reality you condemn.
Nice.
But why?
dmoloney
6 July 2011 3:01PM
CarefulReader 6 July 2011 2:35PM Does anybody seriously think that Gaddafi could've survived for this long if he was fighting the rebels, NATO, and the majority of his population at the same time?
Easily, he has had decades to empower and arm a minority of libyans to support him.
Also whats with this stalemate talk, the rebels are the ones that are constantly gaining ground, last week they took over africas largest weapons bunker from gaddafis forces.
capmint1
6 July 2011 3:03PM
Brian, Demonrho
isnt there something in CiF rules thats say attack the content not the author, but putting that aside:
- Kosovo: Dennis was right on the money when he said CIA were being handed a black bag for Kosovo
- Iraq: he challenged the accountability of Blackwater to paraphase 'wow... do you know what you just said, they are allowed to get away with murder' (until the DPA granted amnesty was recently overturned).
- Libya: there is nothing that I can see wrong with his stance on Libya and War Powers Act, if anything, Congress has not enforced it previously
Personally, I believe he was wrong to meet Assad, although he has said he was misquoted
having illegally bombed Kosovo (no UN mandate and used cluster munitions) and implemented regime change with an ex-terrorist regime now in charge and so far the ICTY have yet to indict any senior KLA leadership figures; which also led to bombing of Chinese embassy and run in with Russians at Pristina;
the same three countries are seeking regime change through the backdoor of R2P, the countries are so skint that they are close to running out of bombs; so they cant even defend the rebels in Misrata and the search and destroy mission in Triploi has only a marginal chance of success given no Nato humint of the ground (satint has targetted command and control, and known Guddafi residencies, but like Saddam, he will be moving every night and in undocumented safe houses)
dmoloney
6 July 2011 3:06PM
It is indeed an illegal war and an unwinnable one.
Under international law it is quite legal. The evidence stating that it is unwinnable is also not very compelling.
I should like to see immediate withdrawal from Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq and anywhere else we have no right to be. These idiotic interventions are killing and maiming the fighting men and women, costing a fortune and creating yet more refugees.
Iraq was a mistake however the afghan intervention has, according to most afghans, improved their lives while the libya intervention is un approved and challenging a dictator who was committing human rights abuses against his people.
MvanE
6 July 2011 3:10PM
Jabsco trying to be smart "US hasn't declared war since WW2"
There''s a difference between decalring war and authorising military action...
The reasons are spot on. Can think of a few more, but this argument is solid. Obama won't care though. They jumped in without thinking as they wanted a war in Europe (cameron eta al) because all their predecessors waanted one and got it.
TripleJarhead
6 July 2011 3:12PM
First, the war is illegal under the United States constitution and our War Powers Act, because only the US Congress has the authority to declare war and the president has been unable to show that the US faced an imminent threat from Libya.
You silly man. Do you think for one moment that if there was a war with Libya, Qaddafi would still be alive.
Sometimes I wonder at the people who write posts for the Guardian.
TripleJarhead
6 July 2011 3:14PM
dmoloney
Iraq was a mistake however the afghan intervention has, according to most afghans, improved their lives while the libya intervention is un approved and challenging a dictator who was committing human rights abuses against his people.
Ah! Sanity amongst the lunatics.
BrianWhit
6 July 2011 3:16PM
Kucinich's trip to Syria was very foolish. It couldn't have come at a worse time, giving succour to the regime and allowing them to make propaganda out of it (see the official news agency's report, for example).
Kucinich may say he was misquoted and mistranslated, but he was being extremely naive if he didn't realise that was going to happen.
As Ammar Abdulhamid noted, Kucinich's views on Syria "are completely misguided and are conducive neither to reform, nor peace, nor democracy, nor anything but empowering a regime that is killing its own people. We are quite fortunate that most congressmen do not share his views."
After messing up in Syria he's now turning his attention to Libya. Great!
Berchmans
6 July 2011 3:18PM
bigfacedog
##.if it were a testing ground for bombs we wanted then Iran would at least be a deserving case.##
In the 80s the Iranians lost a million young men in a ghastly war of survival. Do you not think they could use a break for fecks sake?
mattseaton
6 July 2011 3:21PM
@ BrianWhit:
All very well, but you completely ducked my question about why it's OK for a couple of hundred serious Syrian opposition figures to parlay with the Assad regime – presumably, "giving succour to the regime and allowing them to make propaganda out of it" – but not a US congressman.
timken
6 July 2011 3:23PM
demonrho, your comment, "I used to respect Kucinich for his stand on progressive domestic issues. But he has decided to jump in bed with the right wing and become a professional apologist for butchers like Gaddafi and Assad." disgusts me.
If Bush jnr was still president I bet you would (quite rightly) be tooth and nail opposed this latest in a long line of US foreign adventures. I'll further bet that your support today for the slaughter of Libyans has everything to do with an inability to criticise The One, The Messiah, Obama, your hero.
Am I correct in my summations?
BrianWhit
6 July 2011 3:23PM
capmint1:
I'm trying not to personalise it, but in his role as a US Congressman his behaviour in relation to Syria was highly irresponsible. That has to be taken into account when considering what he writes now about Libya.
MvanE
6 July 2011 3:24PM
dmoloney
Under international law it (no fly zone) is quite legal.. But the US listens to it's own laws. International law does not override the US lawbook..
And that's the same for most. NATO can legally enforce a no fly zone, agree with it or not. But they (NATO) have gone way beyond that. Civilians are not the concern. Cash, economy, gold and oil are.
Oh, and ego's
Leondeinos
6 July 2011 3:25PM
Bravo, Kucinich. You have been right on, from Kosovo to Libya. All these interventions do is put a new moustache in power and increase regional instability.
More Americans should travel to Syria, not to endorse the cutthroat regime, but to learn about the place.
Obama is bombing six countries now and that could go to ten real soon. It is time for the Americans to come home fix their own potholes.
toom
6 July 2011 3:26PM
As I understand it The UN Security Council's resolution 1973
authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory
So forget the idea of boots on the ground because then you'd have the anti Iraq war brigade screaming "illegal war".
So just leave the Libyans to sort themselves out and sell them the munitions to do the job without any foreign intervention.
Benulek
6 July 2011 3:27PM
Speaking of illegal things, that combover is surely a criminal offence?
______________
Các anh chị có ý kiến, nhận định, phê bình gì qua bài viết "The US must end its illegal war in Libya now" của Dennis Kucinich và qua một số trong "236 Comments" của đọc giả ?
Các anh chị nghĩ thế nào vế nhận định "A political solution will become viable when the opposition understands that regime change is the privilege of the Libyan people, not of Nato.", trong phần kết luận của bài viết ?
Chân thành cám ơn Quý Anh Chị ghé thăm "conbenho Nguyễn Hoài Trang Blog"
Xin được lắng nghe ý kiến chia sẻ của Quý Anh Chị trực tiếp tại Diễn Đàn Paltalk: 1Latdo Tapdoan Vietgian CSVN Phanquoc Bannuoc .
Kính chúc Sức Khỏe Quý Anh Chị .
conbenho
Tiểu Muội quantu
Nguyễn Hoài Trang
07072011
___________
CSVN là TỘI ÁC
Bao che, dung dưỡng TỘI ÁC là đồng lõa với TỘI ÁC
No comments:
Post a Comment