Obama Haunted By Past Declarations About Iraq War
Decisions by American presidents to initiate military action against foreign enemies without first obtaining congressional approval, though controversial, are not uncommon.
But if you were startled by President Barack Obama's decision to engage the military in Libya, you are not alone.
Obama and many of the officials who now serve with him were vocal critics of the George W. Bush presidency for alleged abuses of presidential war power.
Yet when Obama authorized the use of American military force against the regime of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, he embraced an expansive view of presidential war power that he once denounced.
Prior to becoming president, then-Sen, Obama clearly left the impression that he considered the Bush presidency's anti-terrorism policies suspect. In a speech delivered in 2007, he attacked the administration for using the 9/11 attacks "as an excuse for unchecked presidential power." The time has come to "turn the page," he declared.
More relevant to Obama's Libya decision is one response he gave in 2007 to a series of questions on presidential power posed by The Boston Globe. Obama explained that the Constitution permitted the president to unilaterally authorize a military attack only in the case of an actual or imminent threat to the country.
Upon becoming president, Obama assembled a team of officials who shared his commitment to reversing the Bush administration's alleged constitutional abuses of power.
One of those officials was Harold Kho, a constitutional law expert, dean of Yale Law School and the president's choice to head the State Department's Office of Legal Adviser.
Years before his appointment, Kho authored an influential book on the constitutional foundations of foreign policy-making in which he took a decidedly narrow interpretation of the president's war powers.
Kho was especially critical of the failure of recent presidents to treat Congress as an equal partner in decisions to exercise military force. Despite congressional efforts to constrain presidents, Kho bemoaned the all-too-often lack of "meaningful interbranch dialogue" prior to a decision to use force.
Given Kho's emphasis on presidential-congressional cooperation, I can imagine his current discomfort. Obama ignored Congress as he contemplated the decision to intervene in Libya.
Less than two days before the military strikes were launched, the president briefed congressional leaders on his decision. I doubt this briefing qualifies as the "meaningful interbranch dialogue" Kho believes is mandated by the Constitution.
Despite the thrust of Obama's campaign rhetoric, he has retained many of the Bush anti-terrorism policies. Though the president promised to close the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, it remains open.
More significantly, the president has embraced the concept of indefinite detention for those detainees the government says cannot be tried but are too dangerous to be freed.
For those detainees who can be tried, the administration has reinstated a modified form of military tribunals. In addition, the administration continues to utilize aggressive terrorist surveillance techniques that disturb civil libertarians.
The American Civil Liberties Union, for example, fears the Obama administration "will enshrine permanently within the law policies and practices that were widely considered extreme and unlawful during the Bush administration."
Since the military strikes, several congressional Democrats, natural allies of the president under ordinary circumstances, have expressed doubts about the constitutionality of the president's action. House Democrat Dennis Kucinich claims the president has committed an impeachable offense.
But the president needn't worry too much about these criticisms. The decision to intervene in the Libyan conflict, stop the slaughter of civilians and allow the rebels a fighting chance to rid themselves of over 40 years of despotic rule was the right call. Moreover, despite the carping, the president acted within his constitutional authority.
It's a shame, though, that the legality of the actions Obama has taken are compromised by the excessive charges he leveled at the Bush presidency.
He now faces an angry group of supporters who feel bewildered and betrayed by a president they thought would exercise the powers of the office in a dramatically different manner from his predecessor.
If the president now finds himself in the uncomfortable position of having to justify his actions to his loyalists, he has only himself to blame.
Bruce Hicks teaches American government at the University of the Cumberlands in Williamsburg.