Vail Daily letter: Going to war |

Vail Daily letter: Going to war

Fredric Butler
Eagle, CO Colorado

To wage war is to authorize military action to resolve issues, conflicts or disputes between two or more separate nations or states. Now, if we accept this statement as a general proposition or consensus, then we begin to wonder about how the United States became involved in the latest “war” with the separate state of Libya.

The former President Bush actively engaged our military in the conflicts of Afghanistan and Iraq. These were wars under no uncertain definitions, and that president was widely condemned for his unilateral endeavors (executive orders to some).

Now, President Obama enters from stage left and promises change. As an Illinois senator and presidential candidate, Obama himself strongly stated that the president can’t authorize military action without congressional approval unless it’s necessary to stop an imminent attack on the United States.

After digesting that pronouncement, the American people voted for such a change. In other words, we were assured that hereafter, the constitutional mandate that only Congress can give the authority to declare and wage war, and once that authority is given, the president is only delegated the power to act as commander in chief, and in turn execute the will of the Congress. This all seems rather straightforward to cognizant Americans.

Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States is authority given to the president by the United Nations, NATO or an ad hoc coalition of other nations to engage the military and wage war on another nation (Libya, et al), and particularly under a circumstance where that other nation offers no imminent threat or danger to the safety and well-being of Americans in general.

Like President Bush, President Obama totally ignored these constitutional fiats, and engaged the U.S. military against another nation and some of its people pursuant to authority granted to him by the United Nations.

Is this presidential conduct further evidence of a broken promise, of a misrepresentation, of hypocrisy?

Just where does President Obama’s allegiance lay? I say not with the Congress and certainly not with the American people as delineated under the Constitution. It lies with another sovereignty, the United Nations.

The interests and charter provisions of the United Nations are conflicting with the interests of the American people and the expressed provisions under the U.S. Constitution. The line in the sand has been drawn by the Constitution, and Presiden s Bush and Obama have chosen a side different than that of the American people.

Support Local Journalism

Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.

User Legend: iconModerator iconTrusted User