• Home
• News
• Events
• Features
• Sports
• About
• Contact
• Advertise

Latest Headlines

• ECSO: Truck Stolen In Bratt, Note Left Behind Claims Woman Was Attacked, Kidnapped
• Two Northview High Career Academies Create Food Cart
• Special Election To Replace Matt Gaetz In Congress Set For April Fools’ Day
• Food Distribution Held Friday In Walnut Hill, Saturday In Cantonment
• Escambia Schools Announce Top 10 Teachers Of The Year
• Still Time To Sign Up! Let The Miracle League Fry Your Thanksgiving Turkey
• Tate Aggies Beat Atmore Blue Devils 71-68 In Nailbiter Home Opener (With Gallery)
• FDLE Charges Escambia Man With Child Porn Possession
• Cantonment Man Charged With Sexual Battery, Molestation Of 5-Year-Old
• Truck Driver Airlifted After Crash On Quintette Road

Miller: Obama, Congress Must Work Together Before Committing To War

The situation in Libya has been evolving constantly since unrest emerged there in February, following similar uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, and other Arab states. Muammar Gaddafi—the man President Ronald Reagan called the “Mad Dog of the Middle East” for his sponsorship of terrorist activity against the United States and her allies—responded violently to opposition protests and threatened to treat protesters like “dogs” and to “show no mercy.”

When the opposition took up arms to challenge Gaddafi and his oppressive regime, President Obama was silent. When the opposition had the initiative, marching toward Tripoli, President Obama was silent. And when Gaddafi regained the initiative, beat back the opposition military forces, and threatened to slaughter his own citizens, President Obama was silent. For three weeks the President remained silent while the world waited for some sign of American leadership, some indication of America’s intentions. The President offered no such leadership and no such intentions.

Nor during those three weeks, did the President approach the Congress—as the Constitution requires—to seek approval to take our nation to war. Instead, who did the President consult? The Arab League and the United Nations.

Two weeks have now passed since President Obama initiated his war in Libya without seeking the approval of the Congress, yet serious questions about the United States’ involvement in that war remain unanswered. Last Thursday, I had the opportunity to question Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen during their testimony before the House Armed Services Committee. Unfortunately, their responses did little to assuage my concerns or those of my colleagues.

When one Member asked Secretary Gates to define “success” in Libya, he responded that the removal of Gaddafi from power is an important part of success. This perplexing response comes after repeated assertions from the administration that regime change is not an objective of the military operations in Libya. How can it be that Gaddafi’s removal from power is one part of the administration’s definition of success, when that element has been ruled out as an objective of the war? This is but one of the many contradictory policies and statements advanced by the Obama administration in defending its decision to go to war.

When asked about the composition of the Libyan opposition, Secretary Gates repeatedly stated that he has no idea of its composition, its key players, or its political objectives. He even admitted that the term “opposition” is a misnomer because there doesn’t seem to be any true structure to the disparate groups opposing Gaddafi. I don’t believe there should be any discussion of arming the opposition until our leaders can speak with confidence about the sympathies, intentions, and affiliations of those groups. As history has shown us, we must remember that the enemy of our enemy is not always our friend.

I was especially bothered by Admiral Mullen’s inability to project the length of our commitment to the NATO operations in Libya. This is perplexing, given the fact that the President and his administration have declared that our military objectives have been achieved. Perhaps it is the President’s failure to clearly articulate his near-, mid-, and long-term goals for Libya that has contributed to the confusion of his Military leaders. Until those goals are articulated, the American people will continue to bear the ever-increasing costs of this operation. As of this week, more than $550 million have been spent on this foray into Libya, and the Defense Department estimates that it will cost an additional $40 million per month to sustain our support to the NATO mission. I remain unconvinced that this is an expense we should shoulder at a time when our Nation bears the burden of a $14 trillion debt.

Finally, despite the policy failings of the administration, our men and women in uniform deserve our highest thanks for their loyalty, patriotism, and professionalism. They have executed these operations with the skill and focus we demand; however, we must remember that we already demand much from these brave warriors and their families. At a time when our service members deploy at historically high rates, the President and the Congress must work together—within the bounds of the Constitution—to ensure that our Nation commits to war only when we must.