Congressional Approval Required?

Over on Slate.com, Weigel argues that Barack Obama needn’t have sought congressional approval for the military intervention in Libya because the Congress (or some of its leadership, minus Kucinich) doesn’t mind the fact that he didn’t seek their consultation and approval.

My expertise in law and international law is limited (I’m not a lawyer), but from the cases I’ve studied, it seems to me that this argument holds a grain of truth. The Supreme Court has at times found that where the Congress abdicates its power to the executive relative to foreign policy, the president can exercise that power. So basically as long as the Congress doesn’t mind, it’s OK. Plus the War Powers Act stipulates only that the president notify Congress of military action within 48 hours of the commencement of that action, which Obama did.

That said, I wish Obama had consulted with and sought congressional approval before intervening in Libya. This could have been as simple as asking Congress to give him permission to take all necessary action to execute UN resolutions relevant to the Libyan situation.  But he didn’t, and this is now very much Obama’s war, and his alone.

Humanitarian Intervention is Back

With the international community authorized to use force to protect civilians in Yemen, the West is once again trying out humanitarian intervention. Andrew Sullivan is critical of this latest venture, and has criticized Barack Obama for not fully enunciating a rationale for using force in Libya. He asks pointedly, why are we getting involved in Libya and not in Yemen, Bahrain, or elsewhere? My first reaction to this was to imagine that a different sort of “mission creep” might occur when and if military action is used against Libya. Might the moral rationale used by Obama draw us deeper into the unrest occurring elsewhere in the Middle East? Could this be the beginning of a more forceful U.S. foreign policy in that area?

Generally speaking, though, Sullivan’s critique echoes critiques of Bill Clinton’s foreign policy that I have heard in school and in the media. Basically, Clinton was said to have a patchwork foreign policy that involved intervening in some states, but not others. The obvious example is Rwanda, the memory of which many suspect might be driving the Obama administrations decision today. But it seems to me that U.S. policy has long been that we will intervene when our moral and strategic interests coincide with one another. Moreover, most presidents’ foreign policies have notable exceptions. George W. Bush, for example, pushed for democracy in the Middle East, but gave legitimacy to Muammar Quaddafi when he gave up his nuclear ambitions. Still, Obama has not stated what our national interest is in Libya?

Revolution in Egypt

A few notes on Egypt:

1) I think the reaction in the US to the Egyptian crisis has been interesting. Many on the left are upset that President Obama has not done more to promote the removal of Mubarak, while most on the right have chided him for abandoning Mubarak, an important US ally in the Middle East. The talk on the right seems to be motivated by concern over the Muslim Brotherhood taking control of Egypt and the possible threat that might pose to Israel (most of what I have read, to the contrary, states that the Muslim Brotherhood, while Islamist, is actually quite moderate, and the party would be unlikely to capture more than 30 percent of Egyptian votes).

I do understand the concern for Israel. Revolutionary state theory suggests that unclear perceptions and motives in this environment make conflict more likely. Still, I believe in liberalism, and I believe that a democratic Egypt can be an even greater ally to Israel than an autocratic Egypt.  And the popular, democratic rights and desires of the Egyptian population should not be sacrificed for Israeli security concerns. If and when a new Egyptian government is formed, the US and Israel can make clear that they want friendly relations and will not tolerate threats to the Israeli state.

On the State of the Union Address(es)

I thought President Obama’s speech last night was good overall, but a bit wanting. His emphasis on making America competitive in a changing global economy was spot on, but his talking points on the deficit fell somewhat short. It was disappointing that he failed to tackle entitlements in a meaningful way. Still, I was surprised and impressed to hear him vow to veto any bill that contains earmarks, though it’ll be interested to see if he sticks by that promise.

It was great to hear Obama proclaim America’s support for the people of Tunisia, but extremely disappointing that he did not also throw his support behind the people of Egypt, who have been oppressed by a US-supported dictator for far too long.