Prevent More War in Libya

By Bridget Moix on 06/29/2011 @ 02:30 PM

Tags: Libya, Peaceful Prevention

Congress is in the midst of an intense debate on U.S. military intervention in Libya that illustrates why prevention really is the best protection.

Yesterday the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved (14-5) S J Res 20 authorizing U.S. military action in Libya in support of the NATO intervention. The resolution is sponsored by a powerful bipartisan group including Sens. Kerry (MA), McCain (AZ), Levin (MI), Feinstein (CA), and will likely come to the floor for a vote later in July. The committee mark up followed an earlier hearing on the War Powers Resolution which showed senators divided over whether the Obama Administration needs congressional authorization to continue current U.S. military operations in support of the now NATO-led mission. Sen. Lugar (IN) succeeded in adding an amendment during mark up of the authorizing resolution stating that congressional approval is required. The war resolution is expected to come to the floor later in July. (UPDATE: A vote on S J Res 20, originally scheduled for July 5th, has been postponed indefinitely, so keep writing letters to your senators!).

The House has also taken up multiple resolutions related to Libya since the intervention began four months ago. Last week, the House rejected a resolution similar to the Kerry-McCain authorizing legislation by a vote of 123-295. At the same time, it voted down (180-238) a measure that would have limited funding for the U.S. role in the NATO operation. Some voted against the funding restriction because they felt it did not go far enough. The House is expected to take up new measures to curtail funding in July.

Across Capitol Hill the Libya debate has raised important questions about how the U.S. prevents and respond to violence against civilians, what constitutes war, and how to apply the War Powers Act. Positions cross party lines and defy simple liberal or conservative labels. The US public appears as divided as Congress. According to an ABC poll, 6 in 10 people – a majority but not an overwhelming one - believe the US should not be involved in the war in Libya. Many cite the $750 million price tag so far as a reason to end U.S. involvement. Supporters of the UN-authorized military intervention argue it prevented mass atrocities and represents a welcome implementation of the “responsibility to protect” (R2P) doctrine. Many of our own colleagues in human rights organizations have supported the intervention on these grounds.

FCNL still believes war is not the answer. Not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan, and now not in Libya. While we support the core concept of R2P - that states are responsible for protecting their own populations from abuse and that the international community shares responsibility for preventing mass atrocities when states fail in this duty - we believe prevention is the best protection. Whatever the original justification of the intervention, what the U.S. and NATO are undertaking is war – not civilian protection – and the goal has evolved to regime change. The messy reality of intervening with military force in any conflict is that it tends to prolong and entrench the violence deeper. The killing that may have been averted in one instance is often replaced by further killing later on.

The Obama administration and Congress should have learned these lessons from the long line of past U.S. military interventions (Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan to name just a few). Instead, both continue defending what has clearly become a third war in which the U.S. is entrenched as a way of protecting civilians. But war is no way to protect civilians from violence and abuse.

How the debates and votes on Libya in Congress unfold in July will have a significant impact on U.S. policy toward Libya. Will the U.S. continue another failed war policy, or can it invest instead in helping end hostilities and finding a diplomatic solution that will truly protect the Libyan people for the long term? Now is the time to urge members of Congress to pull the administration back from war.