The Obama Doctrine Examined

President Barack Obama finally spoke to the American people tonight after committing our nation to a military campaign in Libya 9 days ago.  It has been standard practice for Presidents to address the nation at the time they begin a war.  Obama instead, kept to his schedule and went on a South American trip to increase our exports by agreeing to fund and purchase oil from Brazil's off-shore oil fields and without visiting two nations, Panama and Colombia who have pending Free Trade Agreements that this administration has chosen to ignore.  It was an odd trade mission and an even odder moment to take it.

During the run up to this speech, critics from both ends of the spectrum were asking for greater clarification of the essential goal of the mission, his justification for bypassing Congress and what national interest Libya held for America.  On Sunday the administration sent Secretaries Clinton and Gates to several of the morning new shows to answer some of these questions.

Under questioning by Jake Tapper on ABC's This Week, Secretary Gates answer to the question of whether Libya posed an actual or imminent threat, was

"No, no...It was not — it was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest and it was an interest for all of the reasons Secretary Clinton talked about.  The engagement of the Arabs, the engagement of the Europeans, the general humanitarian question that was at stake."

Later in the interview, Tapper in asking Secretary Clinton why the administration did not go to Congress, prefaced his question by noting that both Clinton and Obama as Senators stated that President Bush would need to have Congressional authorization before acting against Iran. 

"Well, we would welcome congressional support but I don't think that this kind of internationally authorized intervention where we are one of a number of countries participating to enforce a humanitarian mission is the kind of unilateral action that either I or President Obama was speaking of several years ago.”

With the foreshadowing of an Obama Doctrine cast about on Sunday, the President stood before the American people to lay the specifics out for us.  He began by stating the steps that led to his decision to use force in Libya.  He summed up those efforts thusly,

Ruminations From the Void

Double standards - noun - any code or set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another...

Hypocrisy - noun - the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc, contrary to one's real character or actual behaviour

Double standards exist when two groups are held to differing standards due to an inherent difference between the groups.  People often have different standards for men and women given the many differences between the groups.  It is somewhat less acceptable to regard groups of different ethnic or religious cultures differently, but it happens.  With the exception of a few fringe groups, the standards for humans and animals are wisely very different.

Hypocrisy on the other hand is when a person exhibits a standard for others and refuses to hold themselves to that same standard.

A double standard says "some for this one, but not for that one" and hypocrisy says "some for me, but none for thee".  Got it?  Of course there is always a situation where one simply has no guiding principles and improvises standards all willy-nilly. 

Beyond that, some use an immutable guiding principle for their words and actions.  See if you can spot which approach is being used in each story of today's Ruminations.  Don't be afraid to call me out too.

#1 - Here is President Obama in remarks made Friday, March 18th 2011,

Now, here's why this matters to us. Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Qadhafi would commit atrocities against his people. Many thousands could die. A humanitarian crisis would ensue.  The entire region could be destabilized, endangering many of our allies and partners.  The calls of the Libyan people for help would go unanswered. The democratic values that we stand for would be overrun.  Moreover, the words of the international community would be rendered hollow.

And that's why the United States has worked with our allies and partners to shape a strong international response at he United Nations. Our focus has been clear: protecting innocent civilians within Libya and holding the Qadhafi regime accountable.

Our decisions have been driven by Qadhafi's refusal to respect the rights of his people and the potential for mass murder of innocent civilians.

In 2007, an interview with Senator Obama began with this lede,

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

In Obamaland, UN Security Council Authorizes Use of Amercian Troops

In 2002, Congress authorized military intervention in Iraq.  Because the UN was less supportive, Bush was derided for acting unilaterally.

In 2011, the UN authorized military intervention in Libya.  Even though Congressional approval was not sought or received, Obama is praised for acting multilaterally.

My conclusion - UN approval is more important than Congressional approval for a fairly large segment of the American population.

Yikes!!! 

I don't like double standards.  I try to avoid using them.  They serve no real purpose other than justifying incoherent judgements.  That said, I'm sure to be accused of using one when I say that President Obama's use of force in Libya is wrong while Bush's action in Iraq was right.  But don't judge me too soon, lest you look foolish.

I judge such matters by the level of agreement between the executive and the legislative branches.  I read the news and I try to stay informed.  But I'll never have as much information as our nation's elected leaders.  Asking me whether military action is justified in certain circumstances is like asking me to second guess Tony Larussa's use of the St. Louis Cardinal's pitching staff.  In one situation, it may be a no-brainer, but in another, only someone in Tony's position has all the information to make that call.

When the President sees the need to use military force, it is his duty to seek authorization from Congress to act.  Due to the modern nature of military activities, the authorization to use force has become the equivalent of a Declaration of War.  If the President and Congress then agree that military action is the correct move, then who am I to disagree?  If I do disagree, then I can seek to change that in the voting booth.

Occasionally, action must immediately be taken in our nation's defense.  Under such circumstances, I want the President to act first, then seek to justify his actions before Congress as soon as possible and seek authorization for any continuation of military operations.

Bush's action was not correct because I agreed with him.  It was correct because Congress agreed with him.  Obama's is wrong for the same reason.  Congress could have debated and voted on an authorization in less time than it took to pass a resolution at the UN.  Obama has offered no excuse for bypassing Congress.

It's not as if timeliness was an issue.  He supposedly changed his mind on the use of force sometime Tuesday, but no action took place before Friday.  Congress declared War on Japan and Germany in less time after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

What is worse is that even if timeliness was an issue prior to the use of force, it is not delaying him from seeking a declaration now.  But is he doing that?  No, he left town for South America.  That is wrong and unconstitutional.

Whether he feels that Congress would support action or not, he must seek its approval.  Because he has not sought such, it can only be assumed that Obama considers that the UN resolution is an adequate authorization for military action.  Congress cannot let such a precedent stand.

Our military intervention in Libya may be the correct action for the US.  But then again, it may not.  Obama has decided it is.  Now that he has put the military in harm's way, he has my support; but not my faith.  He'll have that when he seeks and receives an authorization for his actions; not from other nation's leaders, but from our nation's leaders.

It's time for Congress to reassert its authority by debating and voting on this military action.  To allow the President to supplant Congressional authority with the UN Security Council's would set us on a course that may soon jeopardize our sovereignty.