Feh. So we have a new campaign to add to the ribbon bar...

Anything with tracks is a tank and any rifle is an AK27.

First day at being a war journo school covers that off.

So, um, don't quibble.  Okay, La Migra, I surrender.  You win.  Anything that has tank components is a tank.  PzHbtz 2000, tank.  Bandkanon, tank.   M7 Priest, tank.  M41, tank.  M8, tank.  M44, tank.  M52, tank.  M53, tank.  M55, tank.  By contrast, the M578 Recovery Vehicle, being based on the chassis of the M110-series howitzers, is a howitzer.  

To quote previously uttered pearls of wisdom:  Anything with tracks is a tank and any rifle is an AK27.

First day at being a war journo school covers that off.

What first day of war journo school, that was the first minute of the 2 mnutes they expend on identifying military equipment (which all journalists know is bad mmmh' hokay?)

I'm glad to see us taking some kind of action. Almost a month and a half after civilians started getting slaughtered the streets. Don't want Q/Guadaffi doing anything horrific or our current ruling power might have to do something besides look like a fish on national television while waiting for the UN.

I  agree we don't need to invest boots on the ground.

I think the fly zone is way too late in coming and we can almost garuntee it will be thrown back at us at some point regarding how we stood around talking about "tightening the noose" that wasn't there.

Bloodspite - careful how you formulate things.

You going to be leading the cheering section to intervene in  the next Rwanda?  Or are some people more worthy than others?

Or is it just a matter of convenience?  I.e., deep in central sub-saharan Africa, not convenient, especially when there isn't a nicely noded easy to target with missiles society in question, vice a comparatively simple-to-template recognizably modern (with resultant vulnerabilities) infrastructure and military, easily accessible from the sea, close to established bases of supply?

A *lot* more people were dying in Rwanda than in Libya.  But there's nicer hotels in Libya, so the press showed it to us.  That, and the *arabs* care somewhat, and then there's that whole potential mass-muslim refugee problem that caused the Euros (less Germany) to grow some spine?

If it's a matter of self-interest, call it such. 

I'm picking on you a bit, mostly to make a larger point.  You provided the foil for the duel, is all.

No worries John,

Actually you are correct, 100%.

For me Rwanda/Ivory Coast was the card that cemented the complete uselessness of the UN. It was a situation that was ripe for global condemnation, perfect for a international force to assert itself for "the Global Good(tm)" and that sat on the sidelines for the most part eating popcorn. What action they did take, was almost as bad as the guerilla's themselves (see France open firing on a group back in the late 90's as I recall not to mention the countless sexual charges)

My issue with the entire Libya situation stems from something you pointed out: Leadership.

The pure irony for me is I keep thinking of a Robin Williams skit back in the 80's talking about  Daffy would say "Ok, you cross this line you die." "Ok...cross this line..you die." "Ok this line." But I can't help but see the roles completely reversed (albeit not as literally).

It's all fine and well to denounce something, but to say your going to do something about it...then don't....that irritates me.

At least with Rwanda we were brutally honest about lack of direct involvement.

Libyan people celebrate on a tank belonging to the forces of Moammar Gadhafi in the outskirts of Benghazi, eastern Libya, Sunday, March 20, 2011. The tanks were destroyed earlier by NATO plans. (AP Photo/Anja Niedringhaus)
Shouldn't that be planes?  or did the un did plan to destroy the tank?  Was it really written like this or was it copied incorrectly?
Yea, I know it's Monday, I am just starting to get  my eyes unblurred, also.
Another war, another Viet Nam. Another trillion bucks. Oh, well.

I wonder if in the Executive Branch will ever bother to seek advise and consent from the Legislative Branch of Government on this the new 2011 Ribbon Bar Redecoration Program.

BillT, I tend to believe that you are right and we have some subtle assistance with making sure all of our targets. As I understand it, they are not targeting MQ, but are targeting the Command and Control of his military. One caveat, he is the commander of the forces and if he's in the infrastructure of said area, what can I say?   “Chit Happens!” We can't control everything in this type of situation. We are targeting the building and if he happens to be in that building, oh well.

Armorer, one of the aspects of leadership is knowing when to step back and let others take the lead. They can only take the lead when we allow it. In this kind of situation, this reminds me of Bill and his fledgling pilots. It is better for us, to allow other nations to take the lead. True leadership brings with itself many problems. As you well know, leadership is not a game.

Boq,If we stop and think about how many wars went through this same start process, it really starts to get spooky. Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates warned of “mission creep”. Boq, If Obama stays within the UN Guidelines established in #1973, we shouldn't have a problem. About your suggestion about “Advice and Consent” from the US Legislature, I hope that Obama keeps his political people out of the Intelligence Community. If he does that, we will have a much more accurate view of everything going on in this arena. Langley is not a political arena, therefore the politicians should stay the  (REDACTED) out! 

Kevin, I have always said, “If we are sending our Troops into Harm's way, it should only be done with a Declaration of War. Every time I have seen this country operate under the the “War Powers Act”, it most often winds up being a “Phuster Cluck". In my view, this is just like the time after 9/11. The only people to make sacrifice were the Military and their Families, the rest of the Nation was told to go “shopping”!  Now, THAT is what I call, “Bravo–Sierra”! Trying to stay, "Rulez Compliant", but failing. 

The last time the United States 'won' a war was the last time Congress performed their Constitutionally mandated responsibilty and actually declared war.  That was on December 11th, 1941.

Since that time, our servicemen and women have risked their lives and limbs in conflict after conflict, suffering death, dismemberment and loss attempting to 'win' ill-defined, sometimes unobtainable and often, ephemeral goals.

The military, even while operating under the most insane rules of engagement have fought and won these conflicts on the field of battle, only to have their sacrifices undercut and negated by the cowardly actions of our craven political class.

Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, the Gulf wars, Afghanistan etc.  Not a single 'win' to be found amongst them. Lest we nitpick, one might argue that Panama and Grenada were wins... but then the spectre of Bosnia/Kosovo/Serbia rears it's ugly head.  However again, none of these conflicts were authorized by a Congressional declaration of war or even an issuance of letters of the Marque and Reprisal.

Operating under the aegis of UN resolutions and sense of Congress resolutions has resulted in no-wins in these conflicts for our fading Republic.  Congress has ducked it's responsibility to man up and have their votes counted in accordance with their duties.  Instead they run for political cover and use the flimsy pretexts cited above as authorization for their actions.

If the United States is to go to war, arguably the most terrible and dreadful action that a nation can undertake, then it is incumbent upon our representatives to be held accountable to their oaths of office and actually declare war before sending our military into harms way.

They owe it to the men and women they send into combat to ensure that the war will be waged to win and that the nation as a whole is committed to prevail in that conflict.

War is not a game, there is no reset button.  War should be the last choice of the many options that exist on the political and diplomatic table.  But once it is decided that bombs will fall, tanks will roll and cannons will thunder, then you fight to win.  Any other result is unacceptable.  As Rome did unto Carthage, so will we do unto you.

As it stands now, we are committed to yet another undeclared war in Libya by our CIC who has abrogated his responsibilities to the nation in subordination to foreign powers.  Sadly, as of this posting, our Congressional representatives remain mostly silent and appear to be once again failing in their responsibilities.

The question that must be answered is; is war a Constitutional responsibility that is to be waged by an aroused Republic, or have we become so politically apathetic and depraved that now our military conflicts are relegated to sad sideshows that were once described as "The sport of Kings?"

Until Congress and yes, we, the American people reclaim our rights and demand that our government act accordingly, I fear that the sport of Kings will continue to be the norm and our national treasures of men, money and materials will continue to be squandered in fruitless, pointless, continual and unwinnable wars.

John of Argghhh, you are right on the button, on this subject of the War Powers Act.  In my view, you rightly put the focal point on two parts, the first is POTUS is acting as Commander-in-Chief. But, this is not a blank check for political military operations. As I understand it, the primary purpose was a stop gap until we could get a Declaration of War, but only for the defense of this Country. To begin with, all actions under War Powers Act, would essentially operate within CONUS. No troops would be deployed in any manner until there was a formal Declaration of War. This means everybody is operating on the same page, the Congress changes its mind set from Peace to War. The American Citizenry needs to understand the new demands of war, not for a few days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries and even  millennia.   I believe we need to examine our own future.

Question-  Have we done any thinking at all about the people that we claim to support? I think we all, on one level or another, want a solution for Libya. But do we know anything about these  rebels? This is it a situation that could go, “Critical Mass” in a heartbeat. In a situation like this, we need hard cold facts. It would not be the first time that somebody we liberated, turned against us. As you can see, my concerns are not because I know but because I know that I don't know.  

For all the table-pounders out there complaining about no declaration of war (were the AUMFs good enough back in '91 and '02?), I offer the following, published by Strategypage back in 2006:

Why Congress Has Not Declared War Since World War II

February 16, 2006: The current war on terror often raises the issue of why war has not officially been declared against the enemy. Most people don't realize that the United States has not declared war since World War II (when a number of countries, not just Japan and Germany, were so named.) And there's a reason for that, one that is rarely discussed.

Seems that after World War II, Congress wrote into law a lot of the wartime measures used during World War II. These included price controls, censorship and greater police powers. This was done with the possibility of nuclear war in mind, where there would be massive damage done to the U.S. in a short period of time. To deal with this, a lot of these regulations would kick in the minute Congress votes to declare war. No one wants to be the first to suggest repealing these laws and regulations, and no one wants to see them go into action. So whenever anyone in Congress starts talking about declaring war, they are pulled aside by some senior staffers and filled in on the consequences.

Of course, the war on terror is more complicated because there is no country to declare war on. That, of course, could be easily gotten around, by crafting a declaration that names an institution (al Qaeda, et al). But it's so much easier just to pass a resolution of support for the president, and let the chief take a beating if it all goes to hell. Congress can always say, "we didn't declare war," without getting into the real reason why not.

So. Can we get on with the real issues?

The AUMFs were good enough for me.  One for this would be nice, since I don't think it clearly meets the criteria of self-defense of assets and personnel.

it certainly meets the wicket of "flexibility a President likes to have handy when s/he needs it."

That said,  we've been in a "State of Emergency" since 1995, anyway.  The first executive order out of both the Bush and Obama administrations were extensions of same.  From the Wikipedia article on the topic (since it ties it up so neatly):

The United States is formally in an ongoing limited state of emergency declared by several Presidents for several reasons. A state of emergency began on January 24, 1995 with the signing of Executive Order 12947 by President Bill Clinton. In accordance with the National Emergencies Act, the executive order's actual effect was not a declaration of a general emergency, but a limited embargo on trade with "Terrorists Who Threaten To Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process".[29] This "national emergency" was expanded in 1998 to include additional targets such as Osama bin Laden,[30] and has been continued to at least 2008 by order of President George W. Bush.[31] There are a number of other ongoing national emergencies of this type,[32][33] regarding for instance diamond trade with Sierra Leone. Especially noteworthy are the ongoing states of emergency declared on November 14, 1979 regarding the Iran Hostage Crisis,[34] that declared on March 15, 1995 with respect to Iran,[35] and that declared on September 14, 2001 through Bush's Proclamation 7463, regarding the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.[36]

President Barack Obama extended George Bush's Declaration of Emergency regarding terrorism on September 10, 2009[37] and again on September 10, 2010.[38]

Cites are hotlinked in the original Wikipedia article.

"So. Can we get on with the real issues?"

"Real issues"?  Open-ended, continual, never ending undeclared wars that are waged with no achievable goals and with no means with which to 'win', declare victory and come home are not "real issues"?

One would think that the obvious results of not requiring Congress to abide by that dusty old parchment (or living document depending on your political persuasion), since WW2 would lay that arguement to rest.  The politicians have cut and run, leaving the military hanging in almost every conflict since WW2 precisely because they haven't been held accountable by a vote as required by the Constitution.

Who could be happy with that and pleased with the results?  We are batting an ohfer since 1945 and that's the fault of the politicians, not the military.

It's so much more politically safe to glad-hand and horse trade through a resolution rather than risk your seat in Congress over a vote to actually, you know.. declare war.  I don't find that acceptable.  The "I voted for it, before I voted against it" nonsense.  Bah!

Like so many other things that government does in violation of the Constitution, it's so much easier to do a work-around than actually do the hard work of amending something you don't like.  It was intended to be difficult for a reason.

The end result of all these work-arounds (in all areas), is what we are now suffering under; a hideously unaffordable, bloated, out of touch, nonresponsive government populated by officials that treat their oaths of office as a mere formality to be mumbled before they can be seated and get to work devising work arounds of said same Constitution they just took an oath to uphold and defend.

As members of the military, we are required to take basically the same oath as our elected officials and woe unto the serviceman who botches that up.  The military will be held accountable, so why not hold those that send them into combat to the same standard?

So I really don't think it's too much to ask that government officials sitting safely behind their desks in DC be held to the same standard as the military personnel they send off to fight and die in war.  The military upholds their end of the contract, the same should be demanded of those in government.

From a risk perspective, it seems to me, the military is risking a helluva lot more than the prospect of possibly losing a seat in Congress.

Finally, if being sent willy-nilly into combat on a mere whim by a President without even the pretense of involving Congress as required by the Constitution (and later the War Powers act) is not a "real issue", then what is?

Would a President taking the nation to war and using United Nations resolutions as the legal basis and justification to supercede the Constitution be considered a "real issue"?