The Obama Administration is offering an odd explanation for why it doesn’t need to comply with the War Powers Act.
Events in Syria, and the world’s response to them, are revealing the moral bankruptcy of the justification for the war in Libya.
Francis Fukuyama: “In the developed world, we take the existence of government so much for granted that we sometimes forget how difficult it was to create.”
Remember when President Obama said there would be “no boots on the ground” in Libya? You didn’t actually believe that, did you?
President Obama says he acted in Libya to avert an imminent genocide, but there’s no evidence that any such thing was about to occur.
A NATO airstrike killed 13 rebel fighters, who were mistaken for Gaddafi’s forces. Apparently, they were shooting at NATO planes.
The U.S. seems to be on the verge of changing war strategies in Libya, even as it becomes clear that these rebels aren’t necessarily our friends.
One week in to Operation Odyssey Down, public opinion is, to put it as nicely as possibly, ambivalent.
As allied involvement in Libya’s civil war increases, there are signs that the rebels may not be able to close the deal.
President Obama’s grand coalition against Libya is a lot less than meets the eye.
The Libyan rebels probably aren’t strong enough to defeat Gaddafi on their own, and the no-fly zone isn’t going to be enough either. Which means this operation is going to be far more extensive than President Obama is willing to admit publicly.
The public, and Congress, are skeptical of the mission in Libya, and the reason for that is because the President has failed to tell us exactly why we’re there and what we’ll be doing.
It has become quite apparent that neither the White House nor our coalition partners have any idea what the path to an endgame in Libya even looks like. That’s not good.