Does Obama understand the meaning of “combat operations”?

There is a violent debate in American circles regarding the interpretation of the administration of the President of the United States Barack Obama The reason why the US Congress did not ask for its consent to participate in a military campaign against him Libya As provided in the US War Powers Act of 1973.

Obama administration insists on US participation in operations against Libya and its colonel Muammar Gaddafi They are considered support and aid operations, not operations of war, which require congressional approval.

The topic has been attracting the attention of the American press for some time, regardless of its political and ideological stripes.

The New York Times, which supports trends Democratic Party of America To which Obama belongs, I published an article by Bruce Ackerman in which he described Obama’s handling of the war in Libya as the legal acrobatics of an illegal war.

Ackerman said what Obama is doing is a dangerous and troubling precedent in American history, as future administrations will use it to wage wars on their whims, away from the principles of accountability and separation of powers on which any democracy is based.

Ackerman says that Obama notified Congress within 48 hours of the start of operations, and under the War Powers Act, that gives him a sixty-day opportunity to return to Congress and get its approval, and if he fails to do so, he has thirty days after that to end US forces’ participation in military operations.

Last week marked the ninetieth day since the bombing of Libya began. But Ackerman believes that Mr. Obama, armed with dubious legal theories, is refusing to stop the American military from fighting.

Ackerman, a law professor at Yale University, thinks Obama is worse than his predecessor George BushAlthough the mission for which Obama bypassed Congress, which is to save Libyan civilians from death, is morally more honorable than the reason why Bush bypassed Congress to approve the torture of detainees, Obama’s crime is greater because he is a legal person and has a law degree from Harvard University, which is considered one of the most prestigious universities.

The Washington Post, an American newspaper that supports trends American Republican Party He also published an article by writer Eugene Robinson in which he said: Let’s be honest, President Obama’s statement that US military operations in Libya are not “combat operations” is utter nonsense, and Congress is right to hold him accountable.

Robinson continues to reject his view, saying that targeting Muammar Gaddafi’s forces using aircraft is an act of war, whether it is right or not.

This involves providing allied forces with intelligence and logistical information that allows them to attack Gaddafi’s military forces – and more recently targeting Gaddafi himself – and these can only be described as combat operations. All of the above is an act of war.

Robinson commented on the Obama administration’s assertion that America’s involvement in operations against Libya did not constitute combat operations, supported by Congressional Speaker John Boehner, who said Obama’s statement did not correspond to “the truth of the matter.”

Obama said at the start of the military campaign against Libya that the US involvement in it would last “days, not weeks”, and Robinson commented sarcastically that Obama believed half of what he said, because it actually “didn’t last weeks” as the campaign and US involvement entered its fourth month.

But Robinson refuses to let go of reality, saying all the fuss over the issue won’t lead to tangible change because Congress only has the weapon of funding cuts, and that’s a weapon he won’t use because he’s always portrayed as abandoning American forces in the field. As for the Senate, the matter is settled, as Majority Leader Harry Reid confirmed that he supports Obama in his position.

Robinson says he hopes he is wrong and that a serious discussion will begin about the campaign against Libya and the best way to use American military power in a rapidly changing world.

The writer strongly asks the question: Are we really using our army to protect civilians from the massacre of a brutal leader? And if that’s true, what about Syria and Yemen where people are dying in the streets?

Another question is: what are we doing there (in Libya)? Are we looking for principles or oil? If Gaddafi is finally killed or removed, what happens next? Do we just give up or go into a rebuilding spiral? Sending combat aircraft without loss of life, or is it just an assassination operation?

The author concludes his article by saying that an educated Obama should start looking for satisfactory answers to these questions as soon as he understands and understands the appropriate definition of the term “combat operations”.