Quote Originally Posted by M-A Lagrange View Post
Obama Libyan Actions Attacked on Two Fronts: Political and Legal
http://www.suite101.com/content/obam...#ixzz1PQ4NLviV

Discussing the decision to go to war is always difficult and requires an in-depth knowledge of the legislation and its practice.
Also, the political debate pitfall is always there.
But still, I am very interested in how the SWJ community perceives that particular action against the decision of a president to engage forces (In the light of military action decision, not domestic politic).
Would Libya be a “jurice prudence” (in both way: wait for congress approval or not) and to which extend this might affect the use of force by USA to defend and protect civilian population under threat of mass murder and human rights abuses.
This discussion would be purely of an academic historical nature had a decisive and short sharp intervention been carried out in response to UNSC resolution 1973. The civilians needing protection were more than merely those living in Benghazi (the saving of which is being spun as being the victory arising from this shambles) but also Misrata, Zintan etc etc and not to forget Tripoli itself. We will no doubt learn about the mass graves in all those places (criminally) neglected by the actions of a waning super-power and a woefully dependent and under militarily resourced Europe.

Too many lawyers are getting involved in these matters and hence the success rate is as low as it is as they continue to hedge their bets (like the no boots on the ground crap - but it has a nice ring, yes?). It is simple in this case where it is a UN authorised humanitarian intervention. The problem is the implementation has been even less than pathetic. Neither Gates nor Mullen should be allowed to slip away into lucrative retirement but should be called to explain themselves (leaving Obama to the voters in a year or so).

Now with a safe pension, Admiral Lord West, a former First Sea Lord has gone on record stating that had there been "more dramatic action earlier on" more progress would have been made by now. That dear admiral is obvious.

I suggest that what we are seeing is the classic deterioration of the Libya matter into philosophical and pseudo-academic discussion of the rights and wrongs rather than asking the simple question "who is responsible for the cock-up"? This followed by "what should the consequences of their failure be"?