Obama the War President

From asserting his Article II war powers over congressional restrictions to the media frenzy about "peace talks" with the Taliban that aren't, Obama continues to surprise.

War Powers

Obama ends up being the President who not only challenges the constitutionality of the War Powers Act of 1973, but actually defies the law? The constitutionality issue has been ongoing with presidents since its passage, but previous presidents have adhered to the provisions despite their protestations. Seems a long ways since his early notoriety among the Iraq War opposition.

Speaking of Iraq... is anyone speaking about Iraq? Occasional headlines about bombings, but otherwise no news is good news? Following the DoD page on operations gives the impression that things are mostly on track with the Bush era SOFA withdrawal agreement made with the Iraqi government at the end of 2008. It's certainly not the "precipitous withdrawal" that Republican candidates warned against and many of Obama's supporters considered necessary. In fact it seems that Obama's actual follow through on Iraq trumps many of the 2008 Republican primary candidates who seemed to go chicken-shit on the issue of Iraq [cough]Romney[cough].

The irony isn't that Obama's campaign rhetoric and actual policy are at odds. You'd be hard pressed to find a successful presidential candidate who completely avoided hypocrisy. The real irony is that of all the complaints about how the Iraq War was authorized, via the War Powers Act, even by democrats who voted in favor in spite of its language that included some executive determinations... Obama was one of the candidates whose rhetoric would have never given the impression he'd favor interpretations of Article II powers that would render those complaints moot.


Afghanistan and "Peace Talks"

Now in 2012 we have a new bunch of GOP candidates who seem to be going soft on Afghanistan. Obama's record there has been more interesting behind the scenes as he inherited the massive covert war that constantly crossed the Pakistan border. It'll be interesting to see if Obama turns out to be the more hawkish candidate in 2012, even if his rhetoric once again swings to sooth base supporters who want the war to end sooner rather than later.

Speaking of ending the war... you'd think we were in peace talks with the Taliban given all the headlines recently saying Gates affirmed we were in "peace talks with the Taliban." The problem is he said no such thing in spite of the headlines. The interview and the quoted comments are all about making contacts, not negotiating any sort of peace. He also highlights the biggest hitch: finding any real leadership in the frayed Taliban organization that could meet all of the US and Afghan conditions. I can't say with any certainty how Osama bin Laden's death has shaken the ties between Afghan Taliban, Pakistani Taliban, the ISI, and other insurgent elements of both domestic and foreign origination. I'm uneasy with any reliance on Taliban, even if decoupled from those other organizations, to honor any agreement or even stay decoupled. It's a legitimate concern, but that's not what we're doing.

The distortion of what we're currently doing may sell headlines and freak out anyone who views the Taliban as an insidious element of the AfPak situation that will reach out to all sorts of bad actors again to retake the country. It's not, however, the current US policy nor the reality of what we're doing... at least not yet. The Taliban issue will remain a long term problem for Afghanistan regardless of whether they retain any hope of retaking the country. Even in the best case scenario there will be Taliban elements and sympathizers within parts of Afghan society and politics. It's something we'll have to deal with one way or another. Whether any sort of talks could be part of the equation really depends on what conditions are met, who exactly we're talking to, and the conditions on the ground.


Strange Bedfellows

McCain has always been an odd duck on foreign policy, allying with those who are aligned with his views or going it alone and pissing off everybody. He continues to annoy many liberals and independents with his push to sell his conservative credentials in his home state after his 2008 primary and general campaigns that irritated the right-wing base far and wide, but lately he has been irritating them again by aligning with Obama on Libya and Afghan issues. He ripped on the slate of candidates debating in New Hampshire as embracing isolationist fringe ideas. With Libya his support has been more direct, challenging the constitutionality of the War Powers Act and arguing against attempts to defund the military operations there.

Personally I find the Libyan situation unsettling, mostly due to lack of information. It's easy to want a monster like Gadaffi removed from power, even before his most recent crackdowns and state backed slaughter. Stepping in to stop that slaughter would generally fall under the purview of the United Nations as opposed to the NATO alliance... though given the UN failures in the area of defending populations from slaughters it was intended to prevent, it makes sense to find alternative solutions. But going through NATO after all the nightmares of divided leadership, disparate tactics, and commitment variance in Afghanistan throughout the war? Perhaps there really wasn't much of an alternative given our current military strain and the inherent problems with trying to form new coalitions for such operations, especially if we aren't necessarily in the lead.

"Leading from behind." Now there's an expression that's been tossed around a lot. What bothers me about it more than the conservative complaints is the history of trying to rely on European powers to take the lead to deal with humanitarian crises. George H.W. Bush initially pinned his hopes with such European initiative for the crisis in the breakup of Yugoslavia. He also seemed to strongly support the idea of NATO dealing with humanitarian crises in the post Cold War era. The long and troubled crucible for these ideas in Eastern Europe throughout the 90s isn't encouraging. It doesn't set in stone how the world has or will change for such ideas and perhaps Libya will prove to be a turning point in spite of the difficulties thus far.

But this approach with Libya is something I could see a McCain presidency doing. Obama going around the UN to deal militarily with a humanitarian crisis must have his supporters wondering if even Hillary would have been so Clintonian. Given the nature of politics, especially partisan politics, it should make them wonder if McCain would have been limited further by public and thus congressional opposition on all of these issues. The fierce opposition to Bush's foreign policies has died down to things like fundraiser war protest songs with "we love you"s afterward for Obama generally continuing them with different rhetoric (and sometimes eerily similar rhetoric).

It's very frustrating to Obama's earlier supporters and just generally confusing in my opinion. Even the Nobel Peace Prize committee has to be wondering what the hell they were thinking. One thing seems clear out of all of this: Obama, regardless of rhetoric, has embraced his position as a war president in policy. To what end? Only time can tell us when it comes to war and war presidents.