When America bombs, the world is better off. Even as in Libya, when led by an incompetent Commander-in-Chief and an incoherent Administration
I miss President George W. Bush, The Decider. His deterrence bone fides were so well-understood after our 2003 invasion of Iraq, that Libya's Colonel Gaddafy decided to unilaterally surrender his weapons of mass destruction program to the armed forces of the United States before they ever had to fire a shot. Not a peep was heard from Libya while The Cowboy slept in the White House.
Joe Biden warned us that international tests were coming when the young President became the resident. The tests have begun in earnest.
The Biden tests came first from would-be Christmas, underwear, and Time Square bombers. The "would-bes" saved President Barack Obama from an "F", before Fort Hood. Then came Russia and START, and Obama cheated on the test using UK nuclear secrets. By "passing" the unilateral weakening of US defenses through a last-minute-before-Christmas, Lame Duck Democratic Party-Majority Senate ratification, our grading curve translates Obama's pre-Libyan, overall national security grade to a D-minus.
He barely scores a passing grade only because he hasn't yet blown the achievements of President Bush and the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Libya President Obama faces is far less dangerous thanks to his predecessor's dismantling of the WMD program of the veteran killer of Americans via hijacked planes. It is doubtful that Gaddafy would have dared to defy any request of a still in office Bush. Moreover, if Obama were feared by even one enemy of the US on earth, it might have been more likely that he would have passed on any involvement in Libya. But given Obama's weak standing and long-time preference for using our armed forces more as a meals-on-wheels humanitarian community organizing operation, the female Dem "hawks" in the administration got the March Madness, Bracketologist-in-Chief to sign onto a show of American force between vacations, apology tours, golf rounds and sellouts of American oil companies to Brazil.
I support the President and the troops (and whatever mission they decide upon...)
All that said, this conservative Republican supports the actions of the President in Libya thus far and will likely consider the adventure a net positive for U.S. national security no matter if Gaddafy ends up staying, although I do have hopes that despite the incredible blunders already, the odds are that Gaddafy will be forced from power. The reason I support the action is due to the high premium I place on the need for American deterrence and the high but difficult to calculate value I put on same.
It is vital that the U.S. be feared
The fact is that the "D" next to Obama's name given the actual behavior of Democrat presidents and congresses for the past 40+ years, greatly reduces American deterrence. This is especially the case given the behavior of then Senator Obama when he joined in the Big Lie of the Bushlied chorus from 2004-2008 and when he and his most-hawkish cabinet member, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton voted to defend the troops, not once but twice before they moved into executive positions.
The Three Fillies of the Apocalypse
The fact of the matter is that after Libya, enemies of the U.S. know that President Obama can be persuaded to drop bombs on Muslims in the Middle East, instead of just apologies. It is vital that enemies of the U.S. have some reason to pause before they defy us. On that basis, I am thankful that the female hawks (Secretary of State Clinton, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and Foreign Policy Advisor Samantha Power) finally persuaded the architect of ObamaCare to care about Libya.
Yes, he bungled the matter for weeks, says former President Bill Clinton, by dithering behind the scenes and then by seeking the blessing or abstentions, of the butchers of Beijing. Yes, he incompetently spoke a great truth during the dithering that Gaddafy must go and has tried to back track on the obvious goal of the official U.N. mandate to protect populations. Yes, his Secretary of Defense incompetently contradicts him on the need for the removal of Gaddafy from power.
All that is true, and for all we know a Libya without Gaddafy could be Somalia II. But the new Libya would be a lethal-air force-less Libya.
The main goal of the War on Islamist Terror, even if Obama's administration won't call it by its name, is to prevent more 911s. One of the keys to the safety of our homeland since September 11, 2001 has been to deny al Qaeda and other terror groups, safe havens from which to train and terror states within which to harbour and amass money.
We can do that with small forces via whack-a-mole no matter what follows Gaddafy. I have no problem with a whack-a-mole policy. Detroit and Chicago police have been playing it for decades.
Close call on the wisdom of the action, not the constitutionality
I hope fellow conservatives will refrain from claiming that our liberal President is acting in violation of his power to wage war as Commander-in-Chief due to his failure to get pre-authorization from a Congress that has the sole power to "declare" war. As we discussed ad nauseum with liberals wanting to impeach President Bush, despite Congressional authorizations to use force in Iraq and Afghanistan (i.e. erstwhile declarations of war), the term "declare" is a legal term that has lost much of its meaning since the 19th Century.
One of the main reasons the framers rejected the un-workable Articles of Confederation and its weakened executive in favor of the "Commander-in-Chief" language of the U.S. Constitution was precisely to put our Chief executive on par with other such leaders of world powers in his ability to act quickly, lest we be fatally weakened in world affairs.
I consider the War Powers Act (1973 statute passed over Nixon veto) to be unconstitutional, but even if it isn't, President Obama can wage war for 60 days carte blanche. Then, Congress can cut off funds, which is the exact circumstance the Constitution gives Congress each and every day. They can also impeach a President.
When we elect a man to be President, we give him, rightfully, very broad powers. Let that be a lesson to us the next time we get to choose and consider whether the "R" or the "D" is better at Big D, deterrence and defense. The choice is clear in 2012.
I admit that the choice is not so clear now in Libya, much as it wasn't in Bosnia, Kosovo and other actions. But as for this fighting gamecock, we will support America and the only foreign policy it has, including our actions in Iraq.
At least now, and from this day forward. there would be reason for a potential enemy of the United States to fear that Obama might drop a bomb on his head. It is especially important that Iran's mullahs have seen something other than a bow from Obama.
My headline quote about the efficacy of American bombings for more than 20 years is being put to its ultimate test.
Legal Editor - The Minority Report
Atlanta Law & Politics columnist for Examiner.com
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern Conservative, Hillbilly Politics, Unified Patriots, Political Daily and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.