Obama Hawk versus Senate Doves?

 On June 8, 2011 Senators Jim Webb (D-VA) and Bob Corker (R-TN) introduced a joint resolution requiring the Obama Administration to provide a detailed justification of U.S. operations in Libya and prohibit the deployment of U.S. troops on the ground there. It calls on the President to request authorization for the continuation of U.S. involvement in NATO activities and states that Congress should fully debate such a request expediently.  President Obama’s assurance that this would be a “short term action” is undercut by the fact that nearly 90 days after the initiation of force in Libya, NATO has just announced that military operations will be extended an additional 90 days.

“The issue for us to consider is whether a President—any President—can unilaterally begin, and continue, a military campaign for reasons that he alone defines as meeting the demanding standards worthy of risking American lives and expending billions of dollars of our taxpayers’ money. It is important for Congress to step in and clearly define the boundaries of our involvement.” - Senator Webb

This comes just days after the House of Representatives voted to approve the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 which contains an amped up Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that critics say goes too far in stripping away Congress' critical role in deciding when to go to war. The original AUMF approved by Congress just after 9/11/01 gave President Bush authorization to go to war in Afghanistan, and Obama the authorization to kill Bin Laden.  Did it permit President Obama to use military force in Libya without asking Congress?

The UN Peacebuilding Commission is working on finding a political solution to the crisis in Libya, as well as address human needs resulting from the fighting.  Can military intervention co-exist with these diplomatic measures?

Watchdogs warn that if the Senate approves the NDAA unchanged, it has the potential to:

• Promote expansion of military response to terrorism and empower the President to initiate military action even more broadly, without the consent of Congress
• Continue funding outmoded weapons systems despite Pentagon recommendations and ignore the billions in cuts that defense experts assert can be made
• Lead to un-ending war

What role should Congress have in warmaking decisions? Has the Obama Administration requested increased power to circumvent congressional debate to assess threats to the U.S. and how to proceed against them? Has the AUMF been abused in the past? What is the blowback when military force is used to “protect the interests of the United States”?  How can we safely cut the Pentagon Budget? Is there a better way to support nation and democracy-building than military intervention?