The Real Principle of the Libya Intervention

As commentators scour President Obama’s address to the nation about our involvement in Libya, they have considered contradictions, hypocrisy, inconsistency, and rhetorical similarities with George W. Bush. Some say President Obama has morphed into a neocon, while others think he led by a multinational humanitarian ideology. What is President Obama’s guiding principle in Libya? The answer may be more simple than it seems.

When Sean Hannity asked Bill Bennett what the speech meant, Mr. Bennett may offered what may have been the most succinct analysis of the night: “I think he was pushed into this because Sarkozy embarrassed him into it … Embarrassed into it by other world leaders.” There you have it.

No, President Obama is not a reborn neocon who suddenly endorses Bush principles he campaigned against. Is he, however, sending a weak message to Qaddafi by suggesting that we won’t use our military to enable regime change and that the United States wants out as quickly as possible? Of course. Does he offer a hypocritical rationale for participating in Libya, while at the same time creating more questions about the limits of his stated principle? Let’s take a look at what he said:

It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. In this particular country — Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Gaddafi’s forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.

To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.

(emphasis mine)

What from that principle separates Libya from Iraq, other than perhaps the need to “[put] American troops on the ground”? What about the reason for intervention in Libya explains why the President rejected a strong response in Iran and Honduras, and has been mostly on the sidelines during uprisings in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and elsewhere? And what about that principle suggests we won’t become involved in any of these other conflicts? Instead of confusing ourselves, we could accept that President Obama is simply trying to cover for himself politically.

Would we be in Libya if the French and the U.N. had not taken the lead and put our president in a position where he had to either enter this conflict or look weak on the sidelines while the U.N. stepped up? We all know the answer.

President Obama’s Fumbled Response to Libya

President Obama’s response to Libya has been problematic for several reasons, and has in turn frustrated many on both the right and left. Ross Douthat suggests that we are seeing the way the left runs a war, but I hope for the sake of the Democrats that what President Obama is doing in Libya is not from their playbook and is just a consequence of a president in over his head.

His slow reaction and lack of clear explanation of our goals in Libya have not inspired much confidence in his leadership. It was France who stepped up to lead, and only after the U.N. passed Security Council Resolution 1973 did President Obama commit to supporting a no-fly zone. This sounds like a John Kerry global test.

In contrast to George W. Bush, President Obama committed to using force to support the U.N. resolution without first obtaining authorization from Congress. While it is debatable whether or not such a commitment needs Congressional authorization, it is likely that Congress would have supported the resolution, which could have given more credibility to the President’s decision. Why did the President not take such a simple step that would probably have had little downside? That decision is not only difficult to understand, but it is inconsistent with what candidate Obama said in 2007 (h/t John Hinderaker of Power Line):

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.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

So the President’s actions in Libya have been slow, unclear, and hypocritical. It is no wonder why both conservatives and liberals are frustrated with his handling of the situation in Libya.

Wisconsin Passes Collective Bargaining Proposal

Wisconsin’s legislature has passed a budget measure that is headed for Governor Walker’s desk. The legislation was passed without the state Democrats because Republicans stripped the non-fiscal aspects out of the budget bill, which allowed the state legislature to vote on the measure without a 3/5ths quorum. Because the collective bargaining provision was arguably not fiscal in nature, Republicans were able to vote on it without the protesting Democrats.

All this happened despite some nasty threats made against state Republicans. Some in the media are also doing their part to frame the legislation in an unfavorable and hypocritical way.

I want to comment on two aspects of this issue. First, Governor Walker and Wisconsin Republicans have shown remarkable courage, regardless of whether or not one agrees with them. Second, when comparing what happened in Wisconsin to how ObamaCare was passed, one should note key differences: The ACA was arguably passed with an abuse of the legislative process when other bipartisan bills (e.g. Wyden-Bennett) could have generated support; the Wisconsin bill passed in a manner that has legal and historical precedent, and there was minimal chance of  reaching bipartisan consensus on the issue.

More ObamaCare Problems

Our friend Guy Benson wrote today about two developments that show more cracks in the administration’s health plan. One is the growing number of waivers – over 1,000 now – for organizations trying to avoid ObamaCare’s burdens. The other is a lack of support for Donald Berwick, who has been nominated for the head position at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and who has praised the NHS national health plan.

The president wants to look like he is open to improvements, as we’ve noted. It seems obvious that there is plenty of room for improvement when over 1,000 organizations cannot meet ObamaCare’s requirements and when the philosophy the administration supports for Medicare and Medicaid can’t get enough votes in a Democrat-led Senate. Considering how hard it has been for Democrats to concede a 1099 repeal, it seems highly unlikely that they’ll make changes to the larger parts of healthcare reform.

Ohio Close to Passing Public Union Bargaining Limitations

It’s not just Wisconsin who is considering legislation to limit the collective bargaining privileges of public employee unions. In Ohio, the state Senate has passed a bill to prohibit the collective bargaining of public employee unions for health benefits and pensions. It is expected to pass the state House as well.

Other states are also considering measures to reduce public sector liabilities.

In Wisconsin, there may be a legal way for the state Republicans to pass the collective bargaining part (and some other parts) of the proposed legislation without the protesting Democrats.

Giving States Healthcare Freedom

A few months ago, Democrat Senator Ron Wyden (OR) and Republican Senator Scott Brown (MA) introduced an amendment to ObamaCare (ACA) that would move up the time when states could apply for waivers from some of the ACA’s requirements. The ACA allows waiver requests from states in 2017, but this amendment would allow states to start applying to opt-out in 2014. The White House recently announced its support of the amendment, which is being described by proponents as a way to offer more flexibility to states.

The flexibility created by Wyden-Brown, however, would be limited. Because the amendment would leave the ACA’s coverage requirements intact and would not allow states to opt-out of Medicaid expansion, states likely wouldn’t be able to meet opt-out requirements unless they offered even more expansive programs than what the ACA provides. States are struggling to pay for current programs, so how are they going to pay for more?

Luckily, there is a better option to allow healthcare flexibility and innovation at the state level. Senators Lindsey Graham and John Barrasso have introduced the State Health Care Choice Act, which would allow states to opt-out of the individual mandate, employer mandate, Medicaid expansion requirements, and insurance benefit requirements of the ACA. The text of the law is here, and it’s a quick read.

If the White House is serious about allowing states flexibility to create healthcare programs, then it should support the State Health Care Choice Act. Instead, it has backed a bill that would likely only allow states to push for bigger government plans like single payer or public option that would meet the administration’s preferences.