Advertisement

Decision to attack Libya leaves some in Congress feeling shut out

President Obama’s sudden and aggressive move to launch a military strike against Libya has some in Congress feeling frozen out of the picture, complaining that the administration has run an end-around past their authority to declare war.

“For the Pentagon to deliberately circumvent congressional authority sets a new precedent for war powers authorization and sends the message to the world that American democracy is deeply dysfunctional,” Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) complained Monday.

Photos: U.S., allies launch attacks in Libya

The debate over whether the president needs a congressional imprimatur to conduct a military campaign is an old one, but the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — and now the Libyan action — have some in Congress looking to assert their authority.

Advertisement

“We have been on sort on auto pilot for almost 10 years … now in terms of presidential authority in conducting these types of military operations absent the meaningful participation of the Congress,” Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, a former Secretary of the Navy, told MSNBC.

Under the Constitution, Congress has the power to formally declare war, but the president serves as commander-in-chief with operational control of the military and the mandate to protect the nation. The tension between the two branches has existed in the modern era ever since the Korean War, which, like the Libyan incursion, was authorized by a United Nations Security Council resolution and never certified by Congress.

Members of Congress on the left and right, including figures such as Democratic Reps. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and Maxine Waters and Barbara Lee of California, as well as Republicans such as Reps. Justin Amash of Michigan and Ron Paul of Texas, have expressed concerns about the constitutionality of Obama’s actions.

In 2001 and 2002, Congress approved resolutions supporting military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, respectively, but came short of a formal declaration of war.

Advertisement

Sharon Bradford Franklin, senior counsel to the Constitution Project, an advocacy group in Washington, maintained that under the Constitution, Obama should still seek congressional approval, as President George W. Bush did for Afghanistan and Iraq, even though the military offensive is already underway.

“The use of force abroad needs to be authorized by Congress,” she said.

But the White House may not see it that way.

In the wake of Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Act, which was an attempt to curb presidential authority to conduct military actions by requiring the president to seek congressional approval within a fixed period of time after commencing such an action. But its legality has always been in question.

The act requires Obama to notify Congress of military action within 48 hours, and Monday, Obama did just that. But in a letter to congressional leaders Monday, Obama, like other commanders-in-chief before him, specifically declined to recognize the act’s supremacy over the executive branch while asserting his constitutional authority to launch the assault.

With regard to missile strikes launched this weekend against Moammar Kadafi’s anti-aircraft batteries, Obama wrote: “I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as commander in chief and chief executive.

“I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action.”

Obama wrote “consistent” with the War Powers Act, not “pursuant” to it. It’s a fine legal distinction, but for experts on the constitutional separation of powers, an important one.

Advertisement

As a result, the only real leverage Congress has in this arena is the power of the purse. Only it can appropriate money to support the Armed Forces.

Absent any formal ability to make the U.S. change course in Libya, some members of Congress, especially Republicans, want answers. They want the president to address how American involvement in Libya’s internal affairs is consistent with U.S. interests — and whether the goal is indeed to remove Kadafi from power or more simply to prevent the slaughter of Libyan citizens.

Obama seemed to muddle the issue for some Monday in Santiago, Chile, when he said it is “U.S. policy that Kadafi needs to go.” But the United Nations resolution under which the U.S. and its allies are operating doesn’t mandate regime change, and the White House has maintained that toppling Kadafi was not a goal of the missile strikes.

Rep. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the president needs to do a better job of outlining the administration’s objectives in Libya.

“If we’re not on the edge of an active war, we are close enough that the president really ought to have a debate in the Congress, ought to have on behalf of the American people, a very clear definition of why American forces are going to be at risk, what the objectives are so we can claim success on the basis, literally, of having to define what we were about,” Lugar said in a CNN interview. “This is why some very good block-and-tackle work needs to occur with the administration and the Congress. And then I believe if we’re going to declare a war on Libya or any other country, we ought to declare a war, have a vote, take responsibility. “

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, called Obama to address a joint session of Congress once it’s back in session.

Webb, too, said Congress must be more involved going forward. “The president’s in Rio. Congress is out of session. So before we even get in to the command structure of this, I think it’s very clear to put the marker down that moving forward, we need to get more involved in terms of anything that goes from this point forward,” he told MSNBC.

To be sure, the president has his supporters in Congress as well. “For decades, Moammar Kadafi, Libya’s ruthless and brutal dictator, has oppressed his people and supported international terrorism. Since the uprising three weeks ago, he’s been slaughtering the Libyan people and is threatening more,” Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, the Senate assistant majority leader, said Monday. “With the full and unprecedented backing of the Arab League and the United Nations, U.S. forces, along with our allies, are enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya. I support this limited international action.”

Advertisement

And while some in Congress believe the president has acted too rashly, potential Republican presidential candidates say Obama hasn’t been decisive enough.

Sarah Palin over the weekend said the president needed to show “more decisiveness, less dithering.” Tim Pawlenty, speaking Monday night on Fox News, said that a no-fly zone would have been more effective weeks earlier, when Libyan rebels seemed to be better positioned to overthrow Kadafi.

And Mitt Romney, appearing Monday night on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show, offered one criticism certain to resonate with some conservatives.

“America has been feared sometimes, has been respected, but today, that America is seen as being weak,” Romney said. “We’re following the French into Libya.”

Photos: U.S., allies launch attacks in Libya

james.oliphant@latimes.com

twitter: @jamesoliphant


Advertisement