This weekend as Western forces commenced air strikes against the military of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi, Colorado Sen. Mark Udall joined most of Congress in support.
Today, a press release from Sen. Udall’s office, while reiterating his support, warns of the consequences and potential costs of a long campaign, and calls for a quick transfer of operational command to NATO or “another coalition nation.” Full release after the jump:
A protracted and deepening U.S. engagement in Libya is neither affordable nor is it in our long-term strategic interests. Ultimately this is not our fight. As the administration has stated, our military objective – and that of the United Nations – is to help the people of Libya by leveling the playing field and making this a fair fight. But in the end, it is the Libyan people who must determine their future.
As we go forward, I have a number of concerns; among them: that the administration isn’t sufficiently prepared to deal with the possible outcomes of this action…
March 24, 2011
Udall Urges Swift Transfer of Command in Libya to NATO
Today, as international coalition forces continued to make progress in their push to enforce a no-fly zone in Libya, Mark Udall reiterated his belief that Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi gave the international community no choice but to launch military action. But Udall, a member of the Senate’s Armed Services and Intelligence committees, added that he has a number of concerns about the future of the U.S. role in the conflict. Ultimately, he believes the responsibility for the enforcement must be turned over to NATO soon. Importantly, he said he will not support American ground troops in Libya.
Udall’s full statement follows:
“As a member of the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence committees, I’m continuing to monitor the situation in Libya very closely, and I have received briefings from the administration about U.S. military operations in support of the Libyan people.
“Last week, with the situation on the ground rapidly changing for the worse for the rebel forces and the Libyan people, the president had to make a relatively quick decision to act. I support his decision, but I’m concerned that there is still no plan in place for the United States to transfer operational command to NATO or another coalition country. I’m encouraged by new reports that NATO may well take over the operation and I urge that transfer to move swiftly.
“The president has consulted with Congress on these operations – however – I also believe he has an obligation to provide Congress and the American public with ongoing updates and more details about the mission and the United States’ role in enforcing the United Nations resolution.
“A protracted and deepening U.S. engagement in Libya is neither affordable nor is it in our long-term strategic interests. Ultimately this is not our fight. As the administration has stated, our military objective – and that of the United Nations – is to help the people of Libya by leveling the playing field and making this a fair fight. But in the end, it is the Libyan people who must determine their future.
“As we go forward, I have a number of concerns; among them: that the administration isn’t sufficiently prepared to deal with the possible outcomes of this action. A Libya with Qaddafi still in charge is a potentially greater security threat to the United States, while a stalemate could divide Libya and leave a power vacuum in an already unstable region. And we can only hope that if Qaddafi leaves the scene, the alternative will be a regime we can support.
“I’m also concerned that ultimately boots on the ground will be called for – and I am strongly opposed to U.S. troops playing that role. I am anxious to hear details very soon about how the United States plans to transition primary responsibility to NATO for this operation. It’s time for the president to address some of these concerns and to provide more information to the American people. I look forward to hearing more specifically from him in the coming days.”
###
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: joe_burly
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: harrydoby
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: Pam Bennett
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: ParkHill
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: ParkHill
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: spaceman2021
IN: Lauren Boebert Picks Up George Santos’ Favorite Side Hustle
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
The media is searching out media exposure seekers on Capitol Hill to criticize the President. Realistically, there isn’t much to criticize the President over. Clearly he consulted Congress as required by law. This is supported by Sen. Udall, “The president has consulted with Congress on these operations…” The Senate also backed the President on March 1st with an unanimous resolution supporting a no-fly zone.
Thank you Sen. Udall.
The president did not come close to following the war powers act. The military is not the president’s private army.
Is that he has to get pre-approval if there is not an immediate direct threat to the country.
in the War Powers Act?
It doesn’t. That’s something Obama said on the campaign trail.
And it says exactly that… But then it says cite needed. Tried to find if it does require it but gave up after a couple of minutes.
So I’ll defer to you on this – my bad.
Wikipedia notes that the War Powers Resolution hasn’t been tested in the courts and there are some doubts about its Constitutionality. And the Founders debated giving Congress the power to “make” war and downgraded it to the power to “declare” war explicitly as a deference to the Presidential C-in-C powers.
Yet another instance it seems where the Founders intended use of the power of the purse or impeachment to express displeasure with the President’s actions and where Congress has tried to make it easier on themselves to take the smallest of motions instead.
is still victory! 🙂
I’ve not listened to Sirota once since the no-fly zone was implemented because he seems to think that Obama’s action was somehow the worst thing to happen since, well, at least since the Iraq War. Completely missing the whole assault on voting, women’s, and worker’s rights going on in our country right now in favor of some point I can’t even begin to see (other than “war bad”).
I guess I’m just missing the part where Obama didn’t do what he’s supposed to do under War Powers. He instituted a military action, told the Congress the next day (and my guess is, he told the appropriate secret committees in Congress before it even happened), and his obligations under the War Powers Resolution are thereby fulfilled, at least until either 60 days has passed or the Congress does something affirmative about the issue.
Sirota always looks for anything to criticize the President for. More than once he has jumped the gun with incomplete information but no matter, he will never alter his stance or, heaven forbid, apologize. Sirota is just sooo offended!
When he started criticizing Bernie Sanders, I decided that he was pretty hopeless.
Truth be told, I haven’t listened to much of Sirota for quite a long time. I give it a try sometimes but I don’t usually last long.
the human weathervane.
When this guy gets an idea of his own, will someone wake me up?