This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, March 21, 2011 - WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama's "no fly zone" enforcement in Libya has run into some heavy weather in Congress, where critics on both the political left and the right have been firing rhetorical rounds at the decision.
U.S. Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-St. Louis, was among the liberals who took issue with the White House decision - concerned not only by the lack of consistency in the U.S. approach to dealing with rebellions in the region, but also about the potential costs of the military operation and the message it is sending to the Arab world.
"It looks like we are waging wars on three fronts against predominantly Muslim nations," Clay told the Beacon, citing the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"We are not treating the Libyans the same way we are treating Bahrain," Clay said. "The same thing is happening in both places - you have pretty much a civil war going on, or civil unrest. And we don't intervene at all in Bahrain because they are our allies and they are close to Saudi Arabia."
Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-St. Louis, disagreed with his fellow St. Louis Democrat on the Libya issue.
"The no-fly zone was the correct action, taken under the president's emergency powers," Carnahan told the Beacon. "It was done in conjunction with a U.N. Resolution and with broad support of the Arab League against one of their fellow Arab countries. It's a genuine, broad international coalition that wants to stop this humanitarian crisis that can have a ripple impact on refugees and economies far and wide."
However, Carnahan added that Obama "needs to very quickly engage Congress, in its oversight role, to be sure that Congress is exercising its constitutional responsibility" on the Libyan action.
Another generally liberal lawmaker, U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said in a statement Monday that he "support[s] this limited, international action" against the Libyan regime.
"For decades, Moammar Qaddafi, Libya's ruthless and brutal dictator, has oppressed his people and supported international terrorism. Since the uprising three weeks ago, he's been slaughtering the Libyan people and is threatening more," said Durbin, the second-ranking Senate Democrat and a member of the Foreign Relations Committee.
He added that U.S. forces, along with allies, are enforcing the no-fly zone "with the full and unprecedented backing of the Arab League and the United Nations." But Durbin, who was briefed by telephone Friday on the Obama administration's plans, said he agreed with the president that "no U.S. ground forces should be used in this operation and it must remain limited in scope and duration."
While some Republicans in Congress generally defended Obama's Libya actions - even though Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., and others thought the president took too long to act - many conservatives expressed qualms about the lack of a clearly defined objective and the lack of consultation with Congress, other than with the House and Senate leaders.
"Congressman Akin is concerned that there was very little consultation with Congress, especially given the lack of evidence of a threat to our national security," said Steve Taylor, a spokesman for Rep. Todd Akin, R-Town and Country.
Taylor also said that Akin, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, was concerned that "the lack of definition of objective lends itself to potential mission creep."
A bit more hawkish, Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., a Naval Reserve intelligence officer, said Monday in Chicago that this country is now in a "shooting war" with Gadhafi's forces - and the goal should be to end his regime.
If that goal is achieved relatively quickly, Kirk said, it would help stabilize the region's oil markets and help lower the price of gasoline. However, the Illinois senator said he regarded the no-fly zone over Libya as an act of war - and that Congress should have an opportunity to endorse that action. Kirk said he hoped that Obama will formally seek congressional authorization for the use of force later this week.
Other Republicans, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., faulted Obama for taking too long to act against the Libyan regime. In an appearance Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union," McCain said Obama "waited too long, there is no doubt in my mind about it."
Even so, McCain said Congress should support Obama's military action, although he contended that creating a no-fly zone in Libya does no go far enough. "If we had taken this step a couple of weeks ago, a no-fly zone would probably have been enough," McCain said. "Now, a no-fly zone is not enough. There need to be other efforts made."
Such efforts, McCain explained, could include jamming the communications systems of the Libyan government's troops and helping to arm the vastly outgunned Libyan rebels.
"Sen. Blunt has been supportive of a no fly zone, and he believes the United States' leadership on this effort was overdue," said Blunt spokeswoman Amber Marchand. "Like all Americans, Sen. Blunt hopes that now that our military forces are at work, they are successful in completing their mission safely."
Democratic Views Differ Widely
Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., who opinion on military issues commands the respect of many moderate Democats, told MSNBC that "we do not have a clear diplomatic policy or a clear statement of foreign policy that is accompanying this military operation."
But some liberal Democrats went further, harshly criticizing the White House. "A nightmare," is how anti-war Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, described the mission in Libya, telling Fox News on Monday that Libya posed "no actual or imminent threat to the United States." Kucinich said that Gadhafi's action against Libyan dissidents did not call for direct U.S. military action. And he accused Obama of bypassing Congress.
Clay, who backed an unsuccessful resolution sponsored by Kucinich last week that would have required the Pentagon to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan by year's end, told the Beacon that he worried about a potential quagmire in Libya: "I go with what Colin Powell said years ago: If you break it, it's yours."
"You had a lot of rhetoric, especially from Republicans, urging the president to do something," Clay said. "But now I hear criticism from conservatives, and [Obama] is also going to take heat from the left because people like me don't think he should have partnered with France and Britain on this."
The St. Louis congressman worries about the costs. "I don't think anyone has suggested any way to pay for this," Clay said. "That's all I've heard the last three months in Congress is that we have to be more fiscally responsible. But right now, I don't hear any discussion of the fiscal responsibility or moral responsibility issues related to this no-fly zone."
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who was embroiled in a political dispute about her own flights, could not be reached for comment on the Libyan no-fly zone.
Republicans Want Better Explanation of U.s. Goals
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Sunday that he supported the overall goal of the military action but said Obama "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."
Boehner said he supported the no-fly actions because our country "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 chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., warned in a statement that the lack of a clear mission objective "risks entrenching the United States in a humanitarian mission whose scope and duration are not known at this point and cannot be controlled by us."
Echoing that view, Rep. Bobby Schilling, R-East Moline, Ill., said "we must hear more from the president before further military commitments are made."
In a statement, Schilling said Obama needs to "clearly articulate the mission in Libya with strong emphasis on how long and to what extent the United States military will be involved. Are we there solely to protect civilians or are we there to remove Gadhafi from power? There have been mixed messages coming from the White House."
Somewhat more supportive, Rep. John Shimkus, R-Collinsville, said he hopes "that our military actions will be able to foster an environment in which the rebels can continue to exert pressure on Gadhafi and his supporters. We've gone down this road before with Gadhafi, so I hope that we are successful this time." Shimkus said he had "previously expressed my support for those Libyans seeking a free and democratic government."
Boehner said said he agreed with those goals, but added Sunday that "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."
On Monday, Obama strenuously defended his actions, noting that he had informed congressional leaders of both parties Friday about his intentions.
At a news conference in Chile on Monday, Obama said "the core principle that has to be upheld here is that when the entire international community almost unanimously says that there's a potential humanitarian crisis about to take place, that a leader who has lost his legitimacy decides to turn his military on his own people, that we can't simply stand by with empty words; that we have to take some sort of action."