ConservativeHome's The Republican

Don't turn Libya into an federal spending problem...because it isn't one

Ryan Streeter

In his column today Rich Lowry urges Republicans not to turn Libya into a spending issue. He writes:

The United States goes bankrupt, it won’t be because of Libya, unless we add all eligible Libyans to our Social Security and Medicare rolls, and even then — at a population of fewer than 7 million — it will only augment current trends. America’s long-term debt is driven by ever-expanding entitlements. Already, this fiscal year, mandatory spending alone is projected to essentially match all federal revenues. We could eliminate the defense budget altogether, at about $700 billion, and still only cut the deficit in half.

This is a really good point. As Lowry goes on to note, in the 1960s both defense and non-defense spending were roughly 10% of GDP. Since then, defense spending has dropped by about half as a proportion of GDP, and non-defense spending has approximately doubled. As he says, in "our long-term fiscal crisis, guns are a pittance compared with all the butter."

Without troops on the ground, the reality is that Libya just isn't going to be that expensive, relatively speaking. There are plenty of problems with how the administration has handled Libya, but money for Tomahawk missiles and ships that were already in the region isn't one of them.

It's better if we keep our debate about spending focused instead of turning everything into a spending problem. When the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem is a nail. We need to be sure to have multiple tools in the toolbox.

Fred Barnes urged yesterday that Republicans be incrementalists on discretionary spending, chipping away rather than risking a shut-down by making demands that simply won't be met. Lowry shows in the excerpt above where the real issue lies: the entitlement spending that will be the target of reforms Paul Ryan will announce in the GOP budget next week.

Republicans respond to President Obama's address on US involvement in Libya

Natalie Gonnella

Here's a quick look at a few of the initial statements from members of the GOP in response to President Obama's speech on US operations in Libya:

Spokesman Michael Steel on behalf of House Speaker John Boehner:

It was helpful that the American people were able to hear from their commander-in-chief tonight. Unfortunately, Americans waited a long time to get few new answers. Whether it’s the American resources that will be required, our standards and objectives for engaging the rebel opposition, or how this action is consistent with U.S. policy goals, the speech failed to provide Americans much clarity to our involvement in Libya.

Senator John McCain

I welcome the President’s strong defense of our military action in Libya, and I appreciate that he explained why this intervention was both right and necessary in light of the unprecedented democratic awakening now sweeping the broader Middle East. Had we not acted in Libya, Benghazi would have become a scene of mass slaughter and a source of international shame....The mission in Libya is going well, but we have not yet accomplished our goal. I am thankful for our many friends and allies, especially our Arab partners, that are contributing to the mission. However, that is not a substitute for U.S. leadership. If our goal in Libya is worth fighting for, and I believe it is, then the United States must remain strongly engaged to force Qaddafi to leave power.”

Senator Rob Portman:

The situation in Libya, with a dictator turning a nation’s military against its own people, is tragic.  I remain very concerned, however, that President Obama has yet to clearly define the scope of our mission, the metrics for success, and our ultimate goal in Libya.  With chaos in Egypt, Syria, Bahrain and Yemen, and Iran again stepping up activity in Syria and with Hamas, President Obama has yet to justify our involvement in Libya; even Defense Secretary Gates said the involvement was not in our vital national security interest. Tonight’s speech left many questions unanswered, and as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I look forward to learning more from Administration regarding the national security rationale in the hearings and briefings to follow this week.

Senator Roy Blunt:

Whenever the President of the United States authorizes a military intervention, he must clearly define the goal and mission of our involvement to Congress, our men and women in uniform, and the American people. Unfortunately, President Obama has failed to meet this criteria, and the cost of our involvement in Libya remains unclear. Huge changes are occurring all over the Middle East, and while we are grateful for our allies in Europe and the Arab community, clear and focused American leadership is as important today as it ever has been. The President's response to these upheavals has often been unsteady and uncertain. If the United States was going to act in Libya, the President should have acted weeks before he did, and done so using much clearer guiding principles and with a more clearly-defined strategy. I'm hopeful our efforts in Libya are met with success, but at this time I remain deeply concerned that contradictions in the President's strategy could have real repercussions for America in the region and throughout the world.

Congressman Frank Guinta

Tonight’s speech leaves more questions unanswered than answered. The president failed to fully explain why U.S. military involvement in Libya is in our national interest, and how Americans would be endangered if Moammar Qadhafi remains in power. Although he was eager to say the leadership of Operation Odyssey Dawn is being handed over to NATO, he failed to list detailed, specific goals for that operation, and an exit strategy for it. He failed to explain his vision for a post-Qadhafi Libya. And, perhaps most troubling, he failed to acknowledge the constitutionality of his actions or the need to consult with Congress about them. In fact, he spoke to the American people tonight – nine days after authorizing military action – only after getting considerable heat from conservatives and liberals alike. His administration took the time to reach out to the Arab League and it took the time to reach out to the United Nations; it needs to put that much effort into continuing to reach out to the American people and to Congress, too.

Congressman Charlie Bass

The brave men and women of our nation’s armed forces are to be commended for once again answering the call to serve, this time in Libya. The President’s speech tonight offered few details, and there are many unanswered questions about our nation’s role in Libya. Congress and the American people deserve to know precisely what our nation’s function will continue to be in this conflict.”

Four more questions: Peter Feaver outlines key points for the public to consider as President Obama addresses the nation on the current situation in Libya

Natalie Gonnella

Earlier today I posted on Ross Douthat's latest column in the New York Times, which highlighted the four key questions President Obama must address during tonight's speech on Libya

In keeping with the numeric theme, by way of Foreign Policy's Shadow Government blog, Peter Feaver has also outlined four imperative questions for this evening's remarks, shifting the focus instead to viewers and the key points they should ask themselves as they tune in to the president's speech.

With widespread confusion over current military operations and frustrations mounting due a lack of clarity from the White House, here's a look at the crucial questions Feaver says Americans should consider:

Did President Obama take responsibility for the outcomes or did he only commit to the inputs? Many observers have worried that the president has focused too much on inputs and not enough on outcomes...Perhaps the most important thing President Obama will say (or not say) is whether the U.S. mission merely involves conducting airstrikes (inputs) or whether the mission has more strategic objectives. If the latter, then it is very much on our shoulders how it turns out.

Has the administration done any serious thinking beyond the best-case scenario? So far, the administration has only sketched out a vision of what our role is under the best-case scenario. What is our commitment and obligation in scenarios where things do not live up to the rosy expectations?...What did Obama say to reassure us that the administration's public spin is not indicative of the quality of the planning involved in this military operation?

Did the president speak candidly about the conflict and the rocky road the coalition has traveled thus far? [T]he president can perhaps be forgiven the occasional rhetorical flourish, such as this one in Saturday's radio address...Perhaps one could say that the administration did a quick U-turn within a week's time...So far, the media have largely given the Obama administration a free pass on over-claiming but if events on the ground unravel, the media indulgence could end abruptly. Rather than recycle the radio address language, President Obama would be better served delivering new text that breathes the fresh air of candor into the public discussion.

Where is his gut? This is a war that he started. Let us listen to what the speech tells us about his commitment to this enterprise. Did the president demonstrate that he will do more to mobilize public and congressional support for the Libya mission than he has done to mobilize support for the Afghan and Iraq missions?

Peter Feaver's full post on key questions for tonight's address can be viewed here.

Ross Douthat outlines four key questions President Obama needs to answer about US operations in Libya

Natalie Gonnella

In his latest column in the New York Times today, Ross Douthat outlines the 'what', 'who', 'when' and 'why' that President Obama needs to clarify in this evening's speech to the nation on the current situation in Libya.

While the president will likely be avoiding words like "war" in his remarks, Douthat notes that "by any name or euphemism, the United States has gone to war, and there are questions that the president must answer."

Here's a look at the four imperative points Douthat says the White House must address in tonight's speech:

What are our military objectives? If the rebels stall out short of Tripoli...how will we respond? With a permanent no-fly zone, effectively establishing a NATO protectorate in eastern Libya? With arms for the anti-Qaddafi forces, so they can finish the job? Either way, the logic of this conflict suggests a more open-ended commitment than the White House has been willing to admit.

Who exactly are the rebels? The rebels don’t need to be saints to represent an improvement on Qaddafi. But given that we’re dropping bombs on their behalf, it would be nice if they didn’t turn out to be Jacobins or Islamists.

Can we really hand off this mission? Obama has said our involvement will be measured in “days, not weeks.” With one week down already, is this really plausible? And anyway, how responsible is it to commit American forces to a mission and then suggest, as a senior administration official did last week, that “how it turns out is not on our shoulders”?

Is Libya distracting us from more pressing American interests? While we’ve been making war on Qaddafi’s tin-pot regime, our enemies in Syria have been shooting protesters, our allies in Saudi Arabia have been crushing dissidents, Yemen’s government is teetering, there’s been an upsurge of violence in Israel, and the Muslim Brotherhood seems to be moving smoothly into an alliance with the Egyptian military. Oh, and we’re still occupying Iraq and fighting a counterinsurgency in Afghanistan and trying to contain Iran.

What They're Saying: GOP freshmen remain concerned about US military efforts in Libya

Natalie Gonnella

As Congress members return from recess this week, many arrive in Washington frustrated and concerned about the country's current involvement in intervention efforts in Libya.

With President Obama due to address the nation tomorrow evening, here's a look at what a few GOP freshmen had to say this weekend about the ongoing situation:

Congressman Mo Brooks

If he'd asked for my consent, quite frankly, beforehand, I'd have said no...We don't have the money to pay for it...Sure, it's humanitarian, and you feel compassion for people around the world. But we have to understand that we are a nation of limited resources...We need to understand that that's more Europe's sphere of influence. If Britain and Italy and France and Germany want to be engaged there - it's at lower cost to them, it's their neighbors - they should be the ones shouldering that burden, not the United States of America.

Congressman Raul Labrador

I'm not sure why we're there.  I'm not sure what we're doing there...We were not attacked by Libya, which was the last time there was any action in Libya, we had been attacked, we were kind of responding to something...It was [President Barack Obama's] Constitutional duty to go to the Congress and to convince us that this was the right thing to do.  I'm not sure that we have any vital interest in that area right now.  And I'm not sure what the mission is and what the end game is, how we're going to get out of this mess

Congressman Chris Gibson

I'm concerned about this action the president has ordered. Now is not the time for the United States to be getting involved in another military action...These things are harder than they seem. We open these types of operations and I think we are going to end up on a slope that will be slippery...I think this is a time we should have exercised restraint and not get involved militarily.

"A lot less effort": as debate continues over US involvement in Libya, Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the implementation of a no-fly zone is now largely complete and that the focus now moves to sustainment

Natalie Gonnella

As the confusion over US action in Libya continues, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates commented on a number of political news shows today that "for all practical purposes" American efforts to implement a no-fly zone are complete, with military focus shifting to "sustainment," which he notes takes "a lot less effort" than initial intervention.  With lawmakers already critical of the situation, and as Republican Representative Justin Amash prepares to introduce a bill to defund current operations until the Administration seeks and receives congressional approval, here's a look at what Secretary Gates had to say on ABC's This Week:

I would say, for all practical purposes, the implementation of a no-fly zone is complete. Now it will need to be sustained, but it can be sustained with a lot less effort than what it took to set it up. As I indicated in my testimony on the Hill, you don't establishment a no-fly zone by just declaring it. You go in and suppress the air defenses and that mission is largely complete.

I think we have made a lot of progress on the humanitarian side and his ability to move armor, to move toward a Benghazi or a place like that has -- has pretty well been eliminated. Now we'll have to keep our eye on it because he still has ground forces at his beck and call. But the reality is they're under a lot of pressure. Their logistics -- there are some signs that they're moving back to the east -- back to the west away from Ajdabiya and other places.

So I think that we have prevented the large scale slaughter that was beginning to take place, has taken place in some places. And so I think that we are at a point where -- where the establishment of the no-fly zone and the protection of cities from the kind of wholesale military assault that we have seen certainly in the East has been accomplished and now we can move to sustainment.

Although President Obama has pushed for a cooperative effort in Libya, the current "coalition of the willing" is the smallest "major multilateral operation since the end of the Cold War"

Natalie Gonnella

While the Obama Administration has pressed for a multilateral approach to intervention efforts in Libya, stressing that the US will undertake a non-leadership role, very few countries have been as keen to heed his call for cooperation.

In a recent post for Foreign Policy's The Cable, Josh Rogin notes that:

Obama's "coalition of the willing" is smaller than any major multilateral operation since the end of the Cold War.

The Cable compiled a chart listing all the countries that contributed at least some military assets to the five major military operations in which the United States participated in a coalition during the last 20 years: the 1991 Gulf War (32 countries participating), the 1995 Bosnia mission (24 countries), the 1999 Kosovo mission (19 countries), the 2002 invasion of Afghanistan (48 countries), and the 2003 invasion of Iraq (40 countries), at the height of the size of each coalition. As of today, only 15 countries, including the United States, have committed to providing a military contribution to the Libya war.

Rogin also adds:

Experts quickly point out that all of these military interventions happened in different contexts. However, they added that the reason Obama's Libya war coalition has less international involvement than all the others was also due to his administration's behavior in the lead-up to the war, its approach to multilateralism, the speed with which it was put together, and the justifications for the war itself.

The full chart comparing coalition participants is available here.

Freshman Congressman Justin Amash to introduce legislation that would require an "immediate halt" to military action in Libya until President Obama seeks and obtains congressional authorization

Natalie Gonnella

Over the course of the past week a number of GOP freshmen have been highly critical of President Obama's recent actions with regard to the ongoing situation in Libya.

One of the most vocal among the newbies has been Michigan's Justin Amash, who next week plans to introduce a bill that will "require an immediate halt to military action in Libya by U.S. Armed Forces until the President seeks and obtains authorization from Congress."

In a statement yesterday announcing his intentions, Congressman Amash said of the legislation:

Without approval from Congress, and absent an imminent or actual threat to our nation, the President does not have the constitutional authority to take us to war. The RECLAIM Act will enforce the constitutional requirement that Congress approve of an offensive military operation. Until the President seeks and is given authorization from Congress, air strikes in Libya must be halted.”

The RECLAIM Act includes a direct prohibition on the use of force and withdraws funding for military action against Libya until the President receives authorization. However, the bill specifically recognizes the President’s inherent authority to defend the country against an attack or imminent danger of an attack.

Sending our brave men and women into harm’s way demands careful consideration. Whether or not Congress agrees with the President’s decision, initiating this conflict was not his decision to make alone.

A draft of Congressman Amash's bill can be viewed here.

House Speaker John Boehner calls on President Obama to clarify US strategy and objectives in Libya

Natalie Gonnella

In a statement today in response to US action against the regime of Muammar Qadhafi, House Speaker John Boehner called on the White House to clarify the Administration's aims and objectives in Libya. While Boehner noted that the US has a "moral obligation" to protect freedom and human rights worldwide, he also stressed that the President has a duty to clearly inform the American people, lawmakers and US troops of his intentions for US involvement in Libya. Here's a look at what Speaker Boehner had to say:

The United States has a moral obligation to stand with those who seek freedom from oppression and self-government for their people.  It’s unacceptable and outrageous for Qadhafi to attack his own people, and the violence must stop. 

The President is the commander-in-chief, but the Administration has a responsibility to define for the American people, the Congress, and our troops what the mission in Libya is, better explain what America’s role is in achieving that mission, and make clear how it will be accomplished.  Before any further military commitments are made, the Administration must do a better job of communicating to the American people and to Congress about our mission in Libya and how it will be achieved.

UN Security Council authorizes a no-fly zone over Libya

Natalie Gonnella

In response to the abhorrent atrocities committed by the regime of President Muammar Gaddafi, the UN Security Council has authorized the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya.

In a vote of ten to zero, with five abstentions (Germany, India, Russia, China and Brazil), the Security Council approved the military action, which some European countries say could be implemented within hours of this evening's vote.