It used to be that launching a hundred Tomahawk missiles into a country killing numerous people would be an act of war. Imagine if Cuba launched a hundred missiles into Florida. I believe we would consider that an act of war. The United States Constitution has provisions on how we are to conduct war. It says in Article I Section 8 that Congress shall have the power to declare war. It seems that we have constructed a new way of declaring war. Here are the requirements:
1) Have one or more UN Security Council Resolutions;
2) Form a “coalition”; and
3) Attack whomever you want.
I’ve been writing novels about the tension between the legal requirements for conducting war and what we actually do since my first novel, Balance of Power.  Things are not getting better. President Obama is as comfortable with adventurous military activity as President Bush was going in to Iraq (and for the record, I supported going in to Afghanistan as that was where the 9/11 attacks originated and were ordered—but Iraq? Why Iraq? Because they violated UN Security Council resolutions?).
President Obama consulted with the UN,  and sent diplomats all over Europe and the Middle East to form a “coalition.” (That’s where others make it look like they support what we’re doing, but we end up doing seventy-five percent of whatever has to be done.) This coalition includes the Arab League–an association of dictators–and several European countries. So our government, formed and bound by the Constitution, consulted with the UN, the Arab League, European countries, but not Congress. How can that be when Congress is where the power to declare war resides?
But regardless of who has the power, is what we’re doing in Libya a good idea? In short, no. We are violating one of the fundamental rules of military conduct. Do not become involved in a civil war absent a compelling national interest.  We may hope Gaddafi topples, and we may hope for democracy. But what right do we have to impose our will by military power on the country of Libya?
On March 3rd, President Obama said it was US national policy that Gaddafi must surrender control of Libya. Why is that American national policy? The protests that began in Libya just as they had in Tunisia and Egypt differ only in the violent reaction of the government. Gaddafi saw what happened when those governments let the protesters flourish. They toppled. He decided on a different course. Violence. He attacked the protesters, which resulted in people throughout Libyan society picking sides. Many members of the government and the military walked away from Gaddafi, and formed an opposition. They have leadership, arms, and an objective—taking over Libya. That is what is called a revolution, or if you prefer, a civil war. But now, the United States, without even a vote of Congress, has become the Air Force and the Navy for the rebel forces.
Why? President Obama said in order to prevent “atrocities.” What atrocities? Shooting civilians? The civilians, with others, are the ones attacking the regime of Libya. It’s a civil war. I am no supporter of Gaddafi, and hope he falls. Good riddance. But the idea that we must provide air cover for a rebel force in Libya, or anywhere else, without an extremely compelling national interest is folly. Unconstitutional folly.
I agree whole heartedly, which is one of the reasons I enjoyed your two previous novels about the ingenious ways Congress could conduct its own war on one man, etc. I’ve told other book aficionados, and each has been intrigued by what I’ve told them about how you blend intelligence, flying and legal drama together.
This will be a terrific web page, might you be interested in doing an interview regarding how you designed it? If so e-mail me!
I remember that after the first Gulf war we had the chance to replace Saddam Hussein and we chose “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t know.”
We have no idea what will replace Gaddafi and perhaps should heed this old adage.