War without borders

http://www.georgejonas.ca/recent_writing.cfm?id=963

by George Jonas
National Post
March 26, 2011

Call me fussy, but before I lent my air force to someone I didn't know, I'd insist on having his street address. Minimally, I'd like more information about him than Barack Obama seems to have about Libya's "rebels."

Shouldn't we find out something about the hopes, dreams and ambitions of insurgents we're helping to form a government? If we pepper a sovereign country's coastline with missiles on somebody else's behalf at $1 million a pop, is it too much to ask him a question or two? It's all very well that he doesn't like Muammar Gaddafi; few people do. But who the hell is he?

Would somebody please tell me what's going on? I mean, we're not conducting this war on our own behalf, but someone else's. Who? The people of Libya? But the people of Libya also sit in the tanks and armoured personnel carriers we're demolishing in engagements so one-sided they may come perilously close to fishing with dynamite. Or, frankly, to war crimes.

There's a civil war in Libya, in which we act as mercenaries except we don't get paid and we're not sure whose troops we're supposed to be. The Arab League's? The UN's? The European Union's? The International Brigade of Useful Idiots?

What if we're Osama bin Laden's?

I'm not suggesting we are -- Colonel Gaddafi is suggesting it, and he naturally would, but the point is, we don't know. We're not even sure who "we" are, as it changes every day. America? NATO? A coalition of the willing? A coalition of the eager, like Canada? A coalition of the reluctant, like Turkey?

And why are we here? Is it to facilitate regime change? Enforce "no-fly" zones? If we're here to protect civilians, do we protect them from both sides?

Speak up, please. I can't hear you.

The voices that call George W. Bush a war criminal for ousting Saddam Hussein are silent about Obama trying to do the same thing with Gaddafi. Why? What's the difference between Obama's war in Libya and Bush's war in Iraq?

Are Obama's reasons for wanting to change Gaddafi's regime stronger than Bush's for changing Saddam's? Well, no; if anything, they're weaker. Gaddafi is a tyrant the world would be better off without, but so was Saddam. Bush at least suspected Saddam of stockpiling weapons of mass destruction; Obama doesn't even suspect Gaddafi. The Colonel is a menace to his own people, but Saddam "Poison Gas" Hussein beat him hands down. Gaddafi's hostility to the West amounted to two downed jets and a disco; Saddam, when thwarted, contemplated invasions and presidential assassinations.

Oil? It's totally unnecessary to go to war for oil, Saddam's or Gaddafi's; buying it is much cheaper.

I suggest the voices are silent because of Westphalia.

Westphalia's treaties in the 17th century established concepts that governed international affairs for 300 years. Sovereignty was a key element of nationhood from the conclusion of the Thirty Years' War in 1648 until the founding of the United Nations in 1945. A world body of sovereign nations, as initially envisaged, the UN pulled a Frankenstein and started lurching about in search of post-Westphalian environments for world government.

When Bush, still a Westphalian, wanted to dislodge Saddam's hostile regime in Iraq, he sought and received authorization from the U.S. Congress before going to war. He did not seek authorization from the United Nations. He acted unilaterally, a word often used as if it were a synonym for illegitimacy, though it's just a component of Westphalian sovereignty.

Obama, bless him, is a post-Westphalian. When he wanted to dislodge Gaddafi's hostile regime in Libya last week, he sought and received authorization from the United Nations and the Arab League before going to war. What he did not seek was authorization from the U.S. Congress. Instead, he acted multilaterally, a word often used as if it were a synonym for legitimacy, though it's just a component of post-Westphalian government.

Whatever the verdict of history will be on their wars, in terms of their office, Bush acted properly and Obama didn't. Under the U.S. Constitution, presidents don't need the UN's blessing for going to war. They do need the blessing of Congress.

America's president isn't a monarch. As commander-in-chief, he may order his country's armed forces to repulse a military attack, but he cannot make war upon another country without congressional authorization. The U.S. Constitution, which American presidents swear to uphold, reserves the right to make war to legislatures.

Oh, but this isn't war. It's protecting civilians. Look at the resolution.

Yeah, right. Congressional authorization didn't make Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq necessarily wise, but it did make it legitimate. A lack of congressional authorization didn't make Obama's decision to go to war in Libya necessarily unwise, but it did make it illegitimate. Bush pursued his policies in the accurate belief that he was the president of the United States; Obama pursues his in the mistaken belief that he's a UN functionary. Possibly, as a post-Westphalian, he thinks that's the higher office.


-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot