It is like a merry-go-round. The United States violates the national sovereignty of a particular nation in the Third World by firing missiles at selected targets. Sometimes the rockets are fired in isolated volleys; other times the rockets are fired in conjunction with other military action, such as the invasion of a sovereign nation. These military actions all have some things in common: first, the United States either took action unilaterally, or took action THEN sought approval (which was NOT NEEDED) from the United Nations (NOT OUR GOVERNMENT) for these actions; second, the missile volleys are pretty much at random and without exception fail to accomplish the objective that was "worth" the violation of international sovereignty; and finally, the (non-emergency) military action was not authorized by Congress, the only branch of the government that can declare war on another nation.
Never mind silly and old-fashioned ideas like following the United States Constitution. From President Reagan, to H.W. Bush., to Clinton, to dumb...I mean...Dubya Bush, through President Obama (the man for Change, remember that?) the United States, via orders from the Top, has consistently violated the very sovereignty of these and other nations by firing missiles whenever it was deemed expedient to do so. And contrary to Mr. Obama's words, there is no CHANGE in this philosophy of negating the Constitution by carrying out acts of war (and not in "self-defense") against sovereign nations with whom we are not "at war." My memory may not serve me well, but I believe President Reagan was the first president to order missiles fired against Libya when there were otherwise no "hostilities" declared between the two nations. The next few presidents followed Ronald Reagan's lead. Again, no declaration of war was made in any of these cases. But military action was carried out.
Now I have to say that I am not against JUSTIFIED military action when it is duly authorized by Congress. And possibly there were some attempts to legally justify these actions, by means of the War Powers Act, which was after the fact. There is some validity to the theory that the President, as the Commander In Chief of United States Armed Forces, needs the latitude to act on some urgent situation that needs to be handled before Congress can be convened. But, this argument is somewhat diminished by our grandparents' experience in 1941 with the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. As much as that attack lives on "in infamy," President Roosevelt was able to contain his anger, direct it against the enemy, and calmly, yet with much righteous indignation, appear before Congress, explain that which really needed no explanation, and ASK Congress to declare war on Japan, which the United States Congress did. So, maybe there is no need for a "War Powers Act" after all.
Regardless, I am a realist and I understand that war is at times unavoidable. But what we have seen in Libya is not war in the conventional sense, yet here we are hurling missiles at that nation again. I am no fan of Libya (that is of Qaddafi and his minions - I realize the people are caught in the middle of these events) but neither do I believe in war against a nation when there is no declaration of such. Qaddafi needs to be overthrown? Well...there's a newsflash. This man needed to be overthrown years ago. Now he finds himself riding out on a wave of rebellion by his people, the likes of which has never been seen and probably was never even conceived of by Qaddafi. But I have to ask myself, why is the United States yet again assaulting a sovereign nation when there is no declaration of war? If we (the US) are at war with Libya, then let's declare it, fight it, win it, and GET OUT, then let the people of Libya decide their fate as a nation.
The fact is that the Arab and Muslim nations are seeing rebellion on a...er...Biblical scale. Presidents and dictators have fallen, and new leaders are filling the void. My point is that the United States (with or without the United Nations) has not intervened in these rebellions on behalf of the "people." Oh, except in Libya.
My other point is that the United States, via the current and past presidents, have violated the national sovereignty of these third world nations without legal cause, and without the desired results. For instance, Qaddafi, himself a target of a "surgical attack" on President Reagan's watch, survived and went on to rule Libya for thirty more years. He survived an attack in 1986 that was ordered by President Clinton. The victim of the attack was instead Mr. Gaddafi's little girl. Now Libya is being assailed by "Coalition" forces acting on a United Nations resolution (or was it a mandate?) while civil war rages within that nation. But the unbelievable aspect of the current Libyan crisis is that United States politicians and military officers have stated that removing Qaddafi from power is not the objective. If removing Qaddafi is not the OBJECTIVE, what IS? The ONLY reason foreign nations have for invading Libya would be to remove Qaddafi. If the United States is joining (and Leading) the invasion of Libya, then there is nothing worth the life of one single soldier...nothing less than the removal of Qaddafi.
If Qaddafi is able to remain in power, if the status quo remains in these other nations as well, I am sure the merry-go-round of missile fire into sovereign nations sans Congressional (and Constitutional) authority will continue for decades to come. We can put a stop to this endless warfare. For one thing, let's get real and understand that a war on any noun (poverty, terror, hunger, DRUGS, etc.) cannot be won, and will therefore be endless and unresolved. We as a people need to demand that our leaders honor the Constitution, rein in the President, and stop the violations of the national sovereignty of any nation. And, stop the endless merry-go-round of missile barrages that accomplish very little other than keeping the fire of international hostility toward the United States burning brightly.
No comments:
Post a Comment