This just in: Congresswoman Candy Miller has issued a statement calling on the president to pull all U.S. forces out of the military coalition that has intervened in Libya.
Miller, who was very hawkish throughout the Iraq war, has been very cool to Barack Obama’s war — as the Republicans have labeled it.
The Harrison Township Republican’s reservations about the no-fly zone have now turned to outright opposition, as she is upset that the coalition’s mission has expanded beyond protecting Libyan civilians.
The mission creep argument has been used by many in the GOP without acknowledging that America’s mission in Iraq — to disarm and oust Saddam Hussein — was inflated into a long-term occupation in which the U.S. ran the country for several years.
Here’s Miller’s statement (it’s long but it’s worth a full read):
“America has the strongest and most capable armed forces in the world, but they should only be used when vital U.S. national interests are at stake and with the broad support of the American people and their representatives in the United States Congress.
“However, President Obama authorized the use of U.S. forces in Libya without stating what vital U.S. national interest was at stake and without the broad support of the American people or their representatives in the Congress. The use of U.S. forces should never be dictated by any supposed international consensus, but only in support of vital U.S. national interests.
“The president has told us that he was committing American troops because of the broad support for action in the international community, including the United Nations, our NATO allies and the Arab League. Now we see some in the coalition seeking to expand the mandate beyond the goals established in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. The Secretary General of the Arab League (said) that his organization is opposed to air strikes in principle. And NATO allies (are) fighting amongst each other over who will be in command of the mission.
“With no agreement among NATO members, the Arab League — which seemingly was for this mission before it was against it — no clear agreed-upon goals or tactics and no nation or organization looking to lead the effort, I am afraid that President Obama has committed our armed forces to a potentially terrible boondoggle that will only strengthen Col. Moammar Ghadafi instead of ousting him.
“It is incredibly troubling when yesterday Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said, ‘This command-and-control business is complicated. We haven’t done something (like) this, kind of on the fly, before.’ I ask how in the world can President Obama commit our forces to battle ‘on the fly,’ particularly when no clear U.S. national interest is at stake?
“Mr. President, the main reason that you have put forward for our intervention in Libya is a humanitarian concern. If that is the case, then you must immediately and clearly define this standard and share with every American when you would again intervene militarily for humanitarian purposes.
“Ongoing repression in the Darfur region of Sudan, Zimbabwe, the Ivory Coast, Iran, Somalia, Syria, Bahrain, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and many other nations have brought forward serious humanitarian concerns. Do any of these crises meet your new standard? Can the American people and our armed forces expect further military interventions?”
“Mr. President, you have failed to state a clear and convincing explanation of the vital national interest at stake which demands our intervention in Libya. You have failed to state a clearly defined mission for our military to defend that interest. You have failed to win the broad support of the American people and the United States Congress in advance of authorizing military operations. The international consensus that you have touted as central to your decision making in authorizing the use of force seems to be intractably frayed. For all of these reasons, I believe you must pull our forces from the coalition immediately.”
It’s interesting that Miller relies upon the same argument that left wingers used in 2002-03 to oppose the Iraq war. That is, that Saddam (in this case, Ghadafi) is not the only dictator that has brutalized and killed his own people, and if we are going to attack Saddam/Ghadafi, when are we also going to intervene to stop other brutal dictators?
Ms. Miller is a hypocrite. We intervened in Kosovo, Serbia and Croatia at the request of our allies. There was no American interest in that region. Our history is replete with interventions without interest.
Now I am against our presence in Libya, But not for the baseless reasons outlined by the Congresswoman. Mine is that we have no reason interfering in a nation's civil war when we have such a damaged economic infrastructure on the domestic front. I watched ABC news the other night. The cost of one Tomahawk missile is 1 million dollars. The Navy launched 126 of them. Can you imagine what 126 million dollars would do if it were given to our local and state government. What irks me on our intervention is that both sides are equally able to fight it out. The rebels took 1/3 of the country in less than a week.
Ms. Miller instead of being part of the politics as usual, party of NO. why don't you find some time to come together with the president and fix our state. Isn't that what we sent you to Washington to do?