Democracy for New Mexico

Udall Again Warns Against Escalation of Military Force in Libya

Last Friday, Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) to exercise its War Powers authority to approve or disapprove the use of American troops in Libya –- saying that we’re “heading down a slippery path towards an escalation of military force” in the country. Yesterday, Senator Udall again stressed that message in even more strongly worded language, this time on the Senate floor (see video above). Excerpt:

“Now, it’s been over 60 days since the President notified the Congress that he intended to use military force in Libya. We are adrift. Without direction. We are in danger of fighting an expanded war – a war that was originally justified as a limited military operation – a no fly zone – to prevent civilian casualties and an imminent catastrophe. 

 “This war has now been slowly expanded to one that is pushing for regime change. Mr. President: We have been down this path before.

The floor speech comes ahead of Thursday’s mark-up of a Kerry-McCain resolution on U.S. involvement in Libya by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, of which Udall is a member. Sen. Udall had proposed the following amendment to S. Res. 194 -- titled ‘Expressing the sense of the Senate on United States military operations in Libya,’ and he is urging that similar language be included in any authorization of military force:

‘That the President is not authorized to deploy ground forces, including special operations forces, in pursuance of any goals related to United States policy in Libya, unless expressly authorized by Congress or as determined necessary by the President to protect member of the United States Armed Forces currently deployed in the region.’

Let's hope that the rest of the Committee, as well as other Senators and House members, truly hear what Sen. Udall has been saying -- and take action appropriate to their war power responsibilities with a clear recognition of how another open-ended armed conflict would damage the nation at this time. It would be incredibly irresponsible to allow President Obama to make all the calls and lazily allow the nation to drift into another expensive and endless conflict with no clear goal or exit strategy.

Below are Udall’s remarks as prepared for delivery:

“I rise today because I believe that the United States is heading down a slippery path towards an escalation of military force in Libya. I also believe that if the United States military is to be involved in such an escalation, then the United States Congress must exercise its Constitutional authority and approve or disapprove of the President’s proposal.

“I supported President Obama’s initial decision to engage in a limited military operation to prevent an imminent humanitarian catastrophe. President Obama and the international community were clear – that the targeting of civilians by Muammar Gaddafi would not be tolerated.

“Now, it’s been over 60 days since the President notified the Congress that he intended to use military force in Libya. We are adrift. Without direction. We are in danger of fighting an expanded war – a war that was originally justified as a limited military operation – a no fly zone – to prevent civilian casualties and an imminent catastrophe. 

 “This war has now been slowly expanded to one that is pushing for regime change. Mr. President: We have been down this path before.

“In Libya, we are now receiving reports that helicopter gunships are being used to target ground forces, something that was never originally intended under the premise of a no-fly zone. In fact, it seems that the no-fly zone has slowly evolved into what some call a ‘no-drive zone.’ The Congress has not approved this action. I do not believe that the UN Security Council approved such an action in the UN Security Council Resolution 1973.

“We also hear that it is now the policy to support regime change and that there are some plans to arm rebel groups. Some outside groups and members of Congress are clamoring to escalate the war in Libya. They believe air power will never dislodge Muammar Gaddafi and his family. To clarify, the U.S. Congress has not approved the use of military force to achieve regime change.

“Flooding the region with small arms is also being proposed. This would be a major mistake and could lead to a host of unintended consequences. We do not know enough about rebels fighting Gaddafi, but we do know that there are plenty of mercenaries, as well as members of Al Qaeda, waiting to exploit any such chaos. If arms are flooded into the region, there is no guarantee that we will be able to account for those arms. And, in my opinion, there’s a high likelihood that those arms could end up in the hands of some very unsavory and dangerous individuals.

 “The bottom line is this: the Congress has not had the opportunity to weigh in. Like my colleagues, I deplore Muammar Gaddafi. I support a democratic transition and his departure from power, but the military goal should be defined and limited as a matter of policy. It should not include regime change.  That is a dangerous escalation.

“As many of you know, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was planning a mark-up last week of S. Res. 194 - titled ‘Expressing the sense of the Senate on United States military operations in Libya.’  I had strong concerns about the resolution we were scheduled to consider for several reasons.

“A sense of the Senate is clearly not an authorization for use of military force.

“A sense of the Senate does not meet the requirements in the War Powers Act.

“And a Sense of the Senate falls short of meeting our Constitutional requirements to declare war.

“I drafted an amendment to S.Res. 194, and I ask Unanimous Consent that the text of this amendment be included in the record at the conclusion of my remarks. My amendment stated:

‘That the President is not authorized to deploy ground forces, including special operations forces, in pursuance of any goals related to United States policy in Libya, unless expressly authorized by Congress or as determined necessary by the President to protect member of the United States Armed Forces currently deployed in the region.’

“I believe that any authorization of military force should contain similar language. I understand that Senator Webb and Senator Corker have introduced a resolution with these prohibitions and exceptions to protect our troops, and I support these efforts to limit the mission in Libya. It is important that we do not escalate military actions in Libya. The results would be dangerous and costly to the region and our country.

“While last week's mark-up was postponed, it is my understanding that Senator Kerry and others are working on language that would fulfill our Constitutional obligations and the War Powers act. I look forward to consideration of this in the Foreign Relations Committee and strongly believe that it should include language similar to the amendment I was going to offer.

“I have been proud to serve in the United States Congress for more than a decade. I have served in the body during two wars. I have seen the impacts on our military, on their families, and on our national deficit. Before the United States escalates its involvement in another oversees conflict, this body must weigh in. It’s our constitutional duty to our country and our constituents.”

Udall: U.S. Headed Down “Slippery Path” Towards Escalation of Military Force in Libya

U.S. Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) yesterday called on the Congress to exercise its War Powers authority to approve or disapprove the use of American troops in Libya –- saying that we’re “heading down a slippery path towards an escalation of military force” in the country.

Udall’s comments come as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee prepares to consider a resolution next week titled, “Expressing the sense of the Senate on United States military operations in Libya.” The committee was originally expected to consider the resolution this week, but that meeting was postponed.

“I have been proud to serve in the U.S. Congress for more than a decade. I have served in the body during two wars. I have seen the impacts on our military, on their families, and on our national deficit,” Udall said. “I’m concerned that we’re heading down a slippery path towards an escalation of military force in Libya. Before the United States escalates its involvement in another overseas conflict, this body must weigh in. It’s our constitutional duty to our country and our constituents.”

The War Powers Act requires the President to “terminate any use of United States Armed Forces” after a period of 60 days unless Congress “has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces” or “has extended by law such 60-day period” or if Congress is not able to meet as a result of an armed attack on the United States.

Udall, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, supported President Obama’s initial decision to engage in a limited military operation in Libya to prevent an imminent humanitarian catastrophe. But more than 60 days after the President notified Congress of his intent to use military force, Udall believes the mission is now adrift and lacking direction.

“We are in danger of fighting an expanded war, a war that was originally justified as a limited military operation -– a no fly zone –- to prevent civilian casualties and an imminent catastrophe.  This war has now been slowly expanded to one that is pushing for regime change,” Udall said. “Like my colleagues, I deplore Muammar Gaddafi. I support a democratic transition and his departure from power. But the military goal should be defined and limited as a matter of policy. It should not include regime change. That is a dangerous escalation.”

Concerned that this week’s resolution didn’t go far enough in restricting the use of military force, Udall drafted the following amendment to limit U.S. involvement in Libya and prevent the introduction of ground troops:

“The President is not authorized to deploy ground forces, including special operations forces, in pursuance of any goals related to United States policy in Libya, unless expressly authorized by Congress or as determined necessary by the President to protect members of the United States Armed Forces currently deployed in the region.”

Because this week’s meeting was postponed, the amendment was not introduced –- but Udall will consider submitting it next week if he believes language in the revised resolution remains too weak.

“The current ‘sense of the Senate’ is clearly not an authorization for use of military force. It does not meet the requirements of the War Powers Act, and falls short of meeting our Constitutional requirements to declare war,” Udall said. “I look forward to consideration of next week’s resolution, and strongly believe that it should include language similar to the amendment I drafted earlier this week.”