The Left often accused President George W. Bush of running an “imperial presidency.” But the label fits Barack Obama much better.
When George W. Bush took US forces into Iraq, he received congressional approval. But Barack Obama? He’s engaged in military operations against Libya and has not even consulted with congress. As Bruce Ackerman points out, its not like he didn’t have the time. The Libyan crisis unfolded over the course of weeks. There was not an immediate threat to the United States. Heck, there was no threat to the United States. It’s just that Obama spent his time courting the Arab League rather than the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The last President to engage in this sort of broad military action without congressional approval? That was Bill Clinton in Kosovo in 1999.
Some might argue that lobbing a few missiles is not akin to invading a country, so you really can’t compare to two. But what if our commitment escalates? When will he feel the need to get congressional approval?
I generally adopt the philosophy that we need to give the Commander in Chief latitude in military affairs. But I adopt that posture because the President needs to be in a position to act swiftly to protect the United States. A humanitarian military operation? In my mind that’s when it is essential to get congressional support. You are calling on Americans to risk there lives. These Americans have committed themselves to protecting the country. They did not enlist in the military for some vague humanitarian purpose. If you are going to use them for that sort of purpose, congress needs to agree.
What makes the Obama move in Libya so troubling is that Obama feels justified by the morality of his cause. Moral certainty can be a good thing. But it can also lead you to believe that you are unaccountable. Your moral purpose justifies cutting corners and acting by yourself. Obama has never lacked in moral confidence. That means we need to really watch him when it comes to the exercise of power.