top of page

Why Intervention in Libya is Wrong for America

“[America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.”

-John Quincy Adams

“The president does not have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

 – Sen. Barack Obama December 20, 2007.

 I expect a special bulletin to be flashed on all the major news outlets proclaim the news that “hell has just frozen over” since this is the first time and I strongly suspect only time that my position on a important public issue is the same as Michael Moore’s and many on the far left. The opinion we shareis that the US military intervention in the Libyan conflict is tragically misguided and in my opinion hypocritical  and unconstitutional. 

The founders intended that the congress be consulted by the President if he believes that a commitment of military forces are necessary. It is the role of congress to debate the reasons for a possible conflict and determine by a majority vote if a “State of War” already exists or should be declared with another nation state.  The Presidents role as commander in chief is limited to commit military forces in a military conflict up until a declaration of war declared is to protect American lives, property or national  interest. The constitution did not give a President “Carte Bache” to commit the country to war.  The president did not formerly consult congress before he committed military forces for the country or to launch an attack upon the nation of Libya.  There has not been a recent attack or a present threat to the US or its citizens or its allies.

The proponents of the intervention point to the 2008 Lockerbie terrorist bombing as justification for intervention and “regime change” but President Bush signed Executive Order 13477 in 2008 which indemnified  Libya for the bombing in exchange for reparations paid to the victims families. Libya also pledged to turn over and destroy and weapons of mass destruction and up until last month the US State Dept stated Libya was in adherence to this agreement. You can debate whether this agreement should have been put in place or had the best interest of the US and the Lockerbie’s victims but a deal was struck by Washington nevertheless. Other supporters point to Qaddafi’s perverse persecution of political dissenters and intervention is needed on humanitarian grounds but does that justify intervention and commiting our nation to war?

If a government’s trampling of its citizens civil rights was justification to intervene militarily in a civil war there are dozens of more compelling conflicts that have been going on for a longer periods of time. If this type of intervention were to become our foreign policy America would be involved in unending conflicts that John Quincy Adams warned us about in the quotation at the beginning of this article. Such a policy would consume our young fighting men and women and certainly destroy our nation.

President Obama did not suggest military intervention last year when huge democratic protests arose in Iran last year. When the Dahlia Lama the exiled leader of the imprisoned Tibetan people visited the white house the president took great pains not to offend their Chinese persecutors but not even receiving him in the front entrance.  Many will point out the intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan as precedence but leaving the wisdom of the conduct of those conflicts and their war aims out of the equation (In which I have many objections) President Bush at least obtained a congressional resolution before military operations began. Calling for congressional aproval is something the current president didn’t bother doing.  The main reason for this intervention by the western powers is simply the politics of oil. When will American demand that we develop our own natural resources and stop being held hostage by the radical environmental lobby who are really green on the outside by red on the inside ? If we had done this starting in the late 1970’s we would have been almost energy independent by now and not subject to the “intrigues” of middle eastern politics. The middle east is a dangerous part of the world and has the capacity to explode into a global conflict inflamed by Islamic fanaticism.

A second reason for intervention is the progressive philosophy first introduced by President Widrow Wilson during and after the First World War. This is the belief in a one-world foreign policy. (Hopefully I will get time to outline how the Wilson administration helped start us on the long steady path of destroying our constitutional republic in a future article).  Let us pray for our service men and women who are being put in harms way for this destructive ideology and also pray that as a nation we will elect a government someday that will follow the constitution and stop these reckless foreign adventures.

-Just my opinion D.B.

2 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

ความคิดเห็น


bottom of page