Saturday, March 19, 2011

So we've gone to war again

A couple hours ago, Saturday 3/18, the US went to war without a Congressional vote, against a country that had not committed any act of war against the US, nor had any weapons of mass destruction, nor initiated any terrorist acts against the US since 1988.

Given the way US wars have been blogged about the last ten years, and the recent debate on making the UUA an official peace church because of those actions, I expect UU bloggers will be ripping into the President with a vengenge. I can't wait to see it.

Any minute now.

UPDATE: If you had some kind of fantasy that it was going to be okay with the Arab League for American forces to bomb Libya just because they asked us to, read this Reuters story, dateline 03.20.11, 21:45 : "The head of the Arab League, which supported Libyan no-fly zone, said his organization had not endorsed attacks on ordinary Libyans. "What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," Amr Moussa said, announcing an emergency Arab League meeting to discuss Libya.

Moussa's comments followed a demand by Russia to stop the "indiscriminate" use of force it said was killing civilians in Libya.
The air strikes exceed the mandate of the UN Security Council resolution, which approved a no-fly zone and authorized all necessary measures to protect civilians, Russia Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said in a statement."

The Arab League cannot pretend it did not know what is involved to enforce a No-Fly zone; the scenario has been played out many times in their neighboring countries. But by pretending not to know, they can use us to rid themselves of a dictator they didn't like, and simultaneously gin up outrage against us for domestic consumption- for doing what they asked us to do!


kinsi said...

I'm really torn on what to think on this one. I'm still sorting out my opinions on it.

But I was one of the like, 15 votes that voted No on the peacemaking resolution at GA. It was quite close to being a unanimous vote at GA.

Chalicechick said...

I was against the peacemaking resolution and I preferred the "give the rebels those stinger missles that don't work after a year" option, but I'm glad we're doing something.


Desmond Ravenstone said...

The problem IMHO is in the interpretation of "peacemaking." Are we to be a pacifist church, opposing war and the use of force no matter what? In so doing, are we not embracing a creed?

There are circumstances where "peacemaking" requires a measured use of force -- in short, just war theory. Some might consider JWT to be just as much a creed as pacifism, but at least it calls for deliberation and discernment instead of a blanket response.

The UUA's Small Group Ministry materials on peacemaking do in fact include a session on JWT. I hope more congregations discuss that option in light of events in Libya.

Doc Häagen-Dazs said...

U-Uism is neither a Pacifist Church or a Warrior Church. I would ask my brother & sisters to think outside of boxes and ask ourselves just how many open-ended war-fronts can we afford when these times are forcing us to close schools, libraries, and the like?

Matt said...

As they say "War is Peace."

On the other hand, the US should focus internally and not get involved in every international conflict just because the nation has oil.

I am skeptical that this will not turn into a lengthy 3rd war where the US will be involved for many years to come.

The UN resolution is not (should not) be a binding force that dictates how the US conducts policy without the discussion or input from Congress or the US people.

Doc Häagen-Dazs said...

Congress??? You want Congress to be consulted? These days, I would not want to depend on Congress on anything, especially paving my streets, educating my grand children or doing the right thing by NPR! Your skepticism on the duration of our Libyan intervention is better founded than is your confidence in Congress.

Joel Monka said...

>Doc, paving your streets and educating your grandchildren is something your city and state should be doing, not Congress. And I didn't say I trusted Congress, I said the law requires that they authorize it.

One of my worries is already starting to show- we just lost an F-15. Not to enemy fire, but to old age and fatigue- F-15's have been grounded from any non combat or routine flying for some time now because they're just so old they're literally falling out of the sky. Large numbers of our front line combat aircraft are more than 40 years old- the B52 is over 50 years old. We've already cut the replacement F-22 contracts, and stretched out deliveries over a number of years to save money- the other replacement, the JSF-35 is also being procured slowly, and it is so complex, with so many technological bottlenecks to manufacture, that deliveries cannot be speeded up. With three simultaneous wars, plus training, we could quite literally run out of combat aircraft in just a couple years! It's humiliating enough that we have to rent spaceships from Russia- could you imagine the howls if we had to start buying fighter aircraft from France?

Matt said...

Doc, I dont trust Congress either, but at least it would give the whole situation a moment of pause.

The idea of invading or attacking another sovereign country should not be taken likely or decided by one person. It is the American people who are sacrificing their families, money, and resources in this conflict.

When America is not under an immediate threat, the President (or the UN) should not have the power to wield its military forces without due process as the Constitution dictates.

Doc Häagen-Dazs said...

All good points made above. These days I wake up with the smell of napalm in the morning (Remembering our last intervention in a civil war), not to mention the stench of stalemate. I will ethusiastically support this, Obama's Grenada, as soon as the MIC's entitlements in Iraq and Afghanistan are defunded.