The White House made it clear it does not feel that President Obama needs Congressional authorization to intervene in the Libyan Civil War because we aren't at war with Libya:
Senior Obama aides said the US involvement in the UN-authorized operation to protect civilians did not rise to the kind of direct, offensive warfare that needed to be endorsed by lawmakers under the 1973 War Powers Act.
"We are not engaged in any of the activities that typically over the years in war powers analysis has been considered to constitute hostilities within the meaning of the statute," a senior administration official said.
"We are not engaged in sustained fighting, there has been no exchange of fire with hostile forces, we don't have troops on the ground, we don't risk casualties to those troops," the official said on condition of anonymity.
"Within the precedents of a war powers analysis... we are confident we are operating consistent with the resolution."
In other words, we were at war with Libya, but not anymore.
More from the AP:
"We believe that the support for the overall mission, the support for the goal of protecting Libyan civilians and holding Colonel Kadhafi accountable will continue," Carney said.
"It is support that we've had from Congress in the past, and we expect it to continue, because now is not the time to send mixed messages, as we've had the success that we've had in that mission."
In other words, The White House does expect Congress to pay for this war support mission.
Alright.
So basically, if we are actually firing missles, sinking ships, and what not, that's war. But if we are simply providing radar guidance, logistical support, and what not, to someone other allied party, that isn't war.
Alright, I can accept that I suppose. My question then becomes why do we have a policy of regime change in Libya if all we are doing is supporting someone else's policy? And why does Congress have to appropriate money for it? Shouldn't those who we are supporting pay for said support?
ABC is reporting the total cost is about $716 million, or about seven years of food assistance for 100,000 Americans perJoan McCarter's chart.
Alright. So what have we got here. If Congress appropriates funds for the "support mission," that would constitute prima facie evidence that they support the policy. That's how I view it. If all we are doing is supporting, then let the NATO allies we are supporting pay us for our support. I believe that also means we don't have to take any policy position on regime change, but that train has left the station. We have to live with it.
Because as we all know, according to the Administration and Congress, we've got a deficit crisis.