Kerry Defends Libya Policy

[Mass]

http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/06/kerry-defends-libya-policy/WSKDwx4R3DAwcTzlJ5yE8J/index.html

Kerry Defends Libya Policy

WASHINGTON – Senator John F. Kerry today defended the Obama administration’s position on US military involvement in Libya, a policy which a top legal advisor to the State Department said has been “dramatically misunderstood.”

“Presidents from both parties have undertaken military operations without express authorization from Congress,” said Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat. “That doesn’t make it right, and I’m not suggesting that it does. It still begs the analysis each time of whether or not (the War Power Resolution) fits a particular situation.”

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing continued a heated debate in Congress over President Obama’s commitment of US military resources to the international effort to suppress Moammar Khadafy’s forces in Libya.

At the heart of the matter is whether the president overstepped his authority by committing resources without Congressional approval, as required by the 1973 War Powers Act. Among criticisms of the Libya policy is that the US has used unmanned aerial drones in the conflict.

Kerry and Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, proposed a resolution last week authorizing the administration’s current actions for one year. The House voted it down, but also rejected a measure cutting off funding for the operation. Despite the House action, the Senate committee approved it today with amendments adding new restrictions to US involvement.

Kerry said he believed that joining the conflict has been in US interests, and that thousands of civilian lives were saved. Moreover, he said, Americans are not in the line of fire and no American ground troops are on the ground.

But he acknowledged that there are “reasonable differences of opinion” on whether use of armed drones – developed long after passage of the War Powers Resolution – constitutes “hostilities” that trigger the resolution.

“As our military technology becomes more and more advanced, it may well be that the language (of the resolution) needs further clarification. Maybe it’s up to us now to redefine it in the context of this new modern and changed warfare and threat,” he said.

The administration’s most prominent critic on the panel is Indiana Republican Richard G. Lugar, who has questioned whether the administration’s legal footing is sound in intervening without congressional approval in what he called a civil war in Libya.

“This country could decide to intervene in numerous civil wars. It could decide to affect the governance of peoples all over the world,” said Lugar. Four of Lugar’s five amendments were approved by the committee.

...

“It does lead to the question of how to update the War Powers Resolution for modern conflict. There will be situations of cyber conflict and other kinds of modern technology coming into play that senators and members of congress never envisioned in 1973,” he said.

While I am not at all surprised to see Kerry take this position, I am bothered by some of the points I read here and in other places, including the fact that it does not matter because there is no troops on the ground. In a time where drones and secret ops can perform operations without official troops on the ground, is this really a position that we want to support? I have to say that I am more bothered by these aspects than by the action itself.

The resolution, amended by Lugar's amendmemt, passed in committee. Now, we'll have to wait and see when Reid will decide to bring it to the floor. He has apparently already said it would not be before the 4th July recess.

[karynnj]

1. I watched part of the first hearing

After saying that their were reasonable differences of opinion, Kerry next spoke of the hope that they could get a bipatisan resolution out of the committee - which they appear to have done. In the hearing - as in the floor speech, it is very clear that Kerry very much wanted an authorization passed.

I think he really needs to join Lugar in demanding that the Obama administration stop their pattern of not providing the committee with what it needs. I understand that he does not want to hurt a Democratic President, but it is clear that they are abusing the fact that he is a very loyal person. I seriously doubt it is to "become SoS". He is smart enough to know that if Obama were to give it because someone "deserved it by helping him" - he would have been SoS for the last several years. There is no reason to think Obama would not do the same thing again.

On this he was one of the people who argued for it - before almost anyone else - and I believe that his motive really was what he said it was averting a massacre and the idea that a massacre ending the rebellion would have ended the Arab spring.

[karynnj]

2. I suspect that The BG did not watch the second hearing

Kerry, Durbin and Cardin ALL supported Lugar's amendment - all strongly saying that this should trigger the War Powers Act. (start around 46 minutes - they are speaking of two amendments - a contentious Corker one - asking the President to certify either that we are in hostilities (which Obama does not believe) OR that the WPA is unconstitutional (which Obama also does not believe) and the straight forward Lugar amendment that essentially says that we are under "hostilities", thus under the WPA. They were both co-sponsors of Kerry/McCain. (Corker said that his amendment was because Obama's response was "too cute" and sets a very bad precedent.) This amendment seemed to be universally voted for.

The second hearing was interesting. Lugar did get his amendments, but still voted against the overall authorization because he does not think we should be there.

(I am watching the hearing now.) Here is a Lugar press release:
http://foreign.senate.gov/press/ranking/release/?id=9d1f91fe-02f5-434e-85fd-c71edd1931c1

Senator Coons made a good point that they need to work on a better definition on hostilities - things like drones and cyper war require it - Kerry agreed and said that there was high spread agreement that this is something they need to do for fiuture situations.

The next amendment was a Lugar amendment to prevent any troops on the ground - Kerry and Boxer were cosponsors and Webb expanded it in a second degree amendment that Lugar supported to ad that this means as peacekeepers after Gaddafi falls and no contractors - except for rescue of NATO forces and protecting our people at the embassy. Requires the administration to come if they want to do anything. This was unanimous.

This set of hearings really are very good.