Hands Off Libya!

In the 2000 Presidential election, I voted for George W. Bush. At the top of the list of reasons was his statement in the campaign that his hero was Jesus Christ. Such a statement, in the political climate of the time, was a bold and brave position -- it bespoke personal courage. A second reason was his avowed fiscal proposals which closely approximated my own, such as allowing private citizens to partially control their Social Security accounts, in short, granting them true ownership of their retirement funds rather than having the government hold those funds in trust. A third reason was his position on the role of the United States as a "nation-builder" -- he stated in his campaign that such activity had to come to a stop.

That last reason was one which I greatly cheered. I have always respected George Washington's view that the United States should avoid foreign entanglements. The Federal government was intended to provide a mechanism for the sovereign States to

"insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the[ir] common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

It was not intended as a proxy for them to wage war on other governments. I had hoped that Mr. Bush would pursue a course away from the use of American military might in an offensive capacity, particularly those actions which advanced the political will of other foreign powers. The toadying of Mr. Clinton to the European Union in countering the efforts made by an American ally in the fight against Islamic terrorism had been particularly disappointing.

The post-9/11 response of the United States was, to me, a missed opportunity. Rather than turning our gaze upon ourselves and seeking the guidance of God to react in a manner that would starkly contrast the position of a nation based on Christian principles as opposed to terrorists with Islamic principles, we sank to their level. Rather than turning to God Almighty as our protector and avenger, we, as a nation, directly disobeyed His command to not seek revenge on our own.

True, we wreaked revenge on the Taliban in Afghanistan for their support of terrorists. Nevertheless, the Taliban were not destroyed, and when American policy shifted, from winning the hearts of the people by helping them, to the surge of combat forced by those who had fixated on destroying bin Laden, we undid all the good which we had previously boasted. We are in a no-win situation in that country, desperately seeking a way out.

True, we removed Saddam Hussein from power, but into the vacuum moved more Islamic radicals, particularly those allied with the Iranian regime. Our troops are moving out of Iraq, and the "democracy" that we supposedly instituted there will quickly increase the power of the Shiite mullahs as soon as our troops are gone. However, as with all democracies, the rights and freedoms of individual Iraqis will be curtailed in favor of the will of the heathen mob.

Currently, there is pressure on the United States to "do something" militarily to intervene on behalf of the anti-government forces in Libya. The reasons given are that a number of U.S. nationals are unable to get out of that country and may be endangered by the fighting, and, besides, the oil must be kept flowing. There is also pressure on the United States to "do something" about the pirates operating out of bases in Somalia. The instant another "hot spot" develops, pressure will rise for the United States to "do something" militarily to resolve the problem. Of course, the moment any such "something" is done, our nation will be vigorously condemned by the most vocal of our enemies, and weakened by having disobeyed God.

The United States was not "built" by some other nation intervening in the affairs of the States. Our Constitution was not forced upon us by a cabal of other nations that wanted to see us free. Our liberties have been dribbled away by decades of voters apathetic to the basic problems we face, but they were gained through the mortal sacrifice of thousands of citizens who wanted to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". Until the peoples of other lands have that same drive and zeal, no amount of American military might can make and keep them free. We are stupid to waste our resources chasing dreams induced by the drug called pride.

What should our response be to the violence in Libya? I would say, stay out of it. U.S. military intervention will not win us any lasting friends, and in the end will not serve any national security purpose since a "democratically" elected government there will have the same attitude toward us as that of the Afghans and Iraqis. Besides, anyone caught up in the chaos in Libya was probably there mainly to assist those who oppose American policy; there were few other reasons for American nationals to be in a country which was antagonistic toward us. Let the Libyans sort it out themselves. It is the only way they will gain any lasting appreciation for their freedom once they grasp it. If American nationals want to privately take sides in the fighting over there [shades of the Spanish Civil War?], let them, but do not spend any effort to extract them when the going gets tough. Also, any attempts to prosecute that warfare on American soil should be dealt with as an ordinary crime; "freedom fighters" carrying the war to America are simply terrorists of a different stripe.

What of the Somali pirates? Our navy was created to protect American shipping, but it has no business doing the dirty work for other nations. The Constitution has the solution embedded in Article 1, Section 7 :

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water".

All Congress has to do is resolve that the pirates are a menace, and then start issuing hunting licenses. The sinking or recapture of the vessels used by the pirates as "mother ships" would soon make the pirates more cautious as to who they might attack, and the ability to sell the prizes would attract both investors and privateer sailors.

Our military personnel are too valuable to be used as a sop to foreign powers that want us to solve their problems for them. Under strict interpretation of the Constitution, they were intended only for defense. To the Founders, the concept of a standing army was distasteful (note the 2-year limitation on military appropriations in Article 1, Section 7); the army of King George had been a primary aggravation to the signers of the Declaration. The Constitution was a compact between the States, and the chief reliance was to be upon the Militia (again note Section 7) --

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions".

That would imply use only within the borders of our own country. The need to impose command structure on the varied elements pushed the Congress to further institutionalize the military, and with that extension of control by Congress, the tasking of our military became a political problem.

It is high time to carefully disengage our troops from overseas combat and retask them to true national defense. It is high time to cease meddling in the internal power struggles of other nations and allow them to gain their own liberty with self-respect. We have no business building other nations.

n.b. There are those who immediately raise the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act as objections, but those laws permit use of the military for law enforcement if so authorized by Congress. The defense of our own borders does not require any change in our current laws, rather, it simply requires the will of Congress to do something. While the President serves as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, his dereliction of duty in the face of a Congressional declaration would be an act of treason. In any event, upon the President's failure to act, or the failure of Congress to act, the command of the Militia (as contrasted to the National Guard, which is part of the Army) devolves to the governor in most States.