President Barack Obama is at odds with several concerning his globalist foreign policy approach, but one individual he is currently embattled with is very peculiar, this person is 2008 Presidential candidate Barack Obama.
Presidential candidate Obama campaigned against the previous administration’s neo-conservative foreign policy approach of militaristic interventionism. His election was supposed to usher in a new approach in the promotion of America’s influence within the world, an attitude attempting to win the hearts and minds of those abroad through cooperation, not military coercion. This belief was supported in several statements by candidate Obama, concerning unnecessary war and abuse of executive power, mostly disapproving of the Bush administration’s consolidation of power during the war on terrorism. With the election of President Obama, many felt that the days of the unitary executive were behind, or so they thought.
Recently, President Obama stepped out of his legal mandate under the War Powers Act concerning the war in Libya. Beyond the initial fact that military action in Libya presents a hypocritical scenario for the president when compared to Obama version 2008, but with the continuation of attacks without such congressional approval after 60 days, a constitutional crisis is at hand.
Obama claims that the United States is not at war with Libya, stating that because U.S. action is “limited”, there is no need to attain congressional authority. The subsequent question becomes what is war, is it war when one nation provides intelligence and logistical support to overthrow a government? Is it war when a nation oversees and manages several air strikes against another? If such actions are not an act of war then what is? If a foreign nation was providing arms and operating a continued missile strike against the U.S., wouldn’t Americans consider such an act of war?
This situation provides another example of an executive overreaching constitutional mandates by not requesting congressional authority for war. It provides an example of the continuation of the unitary executive and neo-conservative policy, all under the new name of globalism.
Comments