Executive Overreach: Use of Military Force Without Congressional Authorization

There are many arguments to be made against the continuation of the American Empire and Wars of Choice.  Making flimsy, legalistic arguments against political opponents, and ignoring clear crimes of a greater magnitude committed by those in the same party, is partisan hackery.  Holding all Presidents accountable in an unbiased fashion is the only way to stand up for the constitutionally mandated division of powers.

Barack Obama’s military intervention to overthrow the government of Libya in 2011, is the most clear, blatant and damaging example of executive overreach for a military intervention not authorized by U.S. Congress since 2001.  This intervention would be the focus of any sincere commitment to challenge executive overreach of unauthorized military intervention.  This clearly impeachable offence by Obama should be cause for an investigation seeking the prosecution of Obama and his administration.  There can only be a real deterrent to future violations with the prosecution of this offence.  Otherwise, it will become clear that such blatantly unconstitutional actions, for all to see, go unpunished.

Libya had nothing to do with September 11, 2001, and had no relationship with Al Qaeda.  Obama intervened not only without congressional authorization, but in defiance of a vote by the House of Representatives, defeating a motion authorizing further military intervention in Libya.  Consequently, Obama specifically violated the War Powers Resolution by continuing to intervene militarily in Libya.

There are some in politics and associated policy and commentary professions that choose to make US military action against The Islamic State the focus of their condemnation.  I will demonstrate that the only argument that has any validity, at best relies on a flimsy legalistic interpretation of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force.

The following is the most relevant part of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. 

The following sequence of events should make it clear that The Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) should be considered an authorized target for use of military force, regardless of what some commentators and elected representatives contend.

Sequence of Events:

·   Al Qaeda leadership - determined by the President to have committed the attacks of September 11, 2001 - recognized Al Qaeda in Iraq as an affiliate.

·   Al Qaeda in Iraq underwent several mergers with ex Iraqi Ba'athists and other parts of the Iraqi resistance to US occupation, adopting the name The Islamic State of Iraq.

·   After nearly being totally defeated in Iraq, The Islamic State of Iraq was able to reconstitute itself by infiltrating the Syrian opposition in the Syrian Civil War.  They eventually emerge as The Islamic State of Iraq and Al Sham (ISIS).

·   Following longstanding tensions between Al Qaeda leadership and their Iraqi affiliate, a full break occurred, severing the organisations.  Around this time period, the truncated name “The Islamic State” is adopted.  This rupture represented a challenge from The Islamic State to Al Qaeda for dominance and leadership of the global Jihadi movement.

·   There is speculation, that I am inclined to believe, that within the Iraqi affiliate the ex Iraqi Ba'athists became dominant and resented following orders from Al Qaeda leadership based primarily in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

An interpretation of the intention of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force that exempts The Islamic State is flimsy and absurd, especially with regard to the purpose “to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States”.  Following the logic of the proponents of this interpretation, the mere development of an internal Al Qaeda power struggle bringing a splinter faction to prominence, in its own right, must be interpreted as reason enough to exempt the newly independent organization from being an authorized target.  It is exactly the same conclusion members of the House Progressive Caucus reached to condemn Donald Trump for escalating the anti Islamic State Syrian intervention initiated by Obama.  It is clear that the argument of executive overreach is extremely weak in the matter of combating ISIS.

There are inconsistencies in positions regarding Obama's and Trump's actions combating ISIS.  There is also a severe lack of condemnation for Obama's 2011 Libyan intervention, which so far has been the far greater crime compared to Trump's so far limited attacks on Syrian government forces recently.  Trump's military engagements against the forces of the State of Syria, and their allies, constitutes his own genuine executive overreach.  Trump has not sought authorization from Congress for these actions, and has not indicated he is intending to, pursuant to the War Powers Resolution.

The War Powers Resolution is an attempt to allow The President, in their capacity as Commander in Chief, to respond to imminent threats to the United States and maintain the constitutional requirement that vests the power to declare war and authorize the use of military force with the Congress.  It would seem most reasonable to grant the greatest leeway to the President to combat the credible and ongoing threat presented by Al Qaeda and ISIS.  There should be no leeway to allow the President to make unilateral war on a sovereign state that presents no credible threat to the United States, overriding the authority of the Congress in doing so.  Far too many people, judging by their emphasis on the matter, seem to have drawn the opposite conclusion.

There can, and should, be a separate debate if a military response to organisations like Al Qaeda and ISIS is necessary at all, and what is the effectiveness of the actions taken in diminishing the threat.  It is my conclusion that Obama's drone war policy was largely counterproductive.  What should not be tolerated are wars that only serve the personal interests of the President or murky geostrategic and corporate interests.

Fake News Smoke Screen

I have chosen for my first post on this platform the topic of so called “Fake News” for a reason.  My aspiration is that with quality informative pieces, in time I will become a trusted source of information.  For this pursuit, it is in my interest, to call attention to the real objectives behind the supposed response to fake news.  The real objective is to combat what is at the heart of my endeavour that I commence with you here - paradigm altering thought.

It is my critique of many media outlets that their alleged efforts to fact check is not driven by presenting verifiable facts.  Instead, the media will attack views that contradict the dominant social paradigm regardless of verifiable evidence one way or the other.  The main distinction can be drawn between those things that are measurable in some way and can be truly fact checked, and those that cannot and are opinion, speculation or rely on logical reasoning alone.

One of the responses to so called fake news adopted by some online platforms like Facebook is using allegedly trusted news outlets for third party vetting.  I do not see how this could result in anything other than an open door to censorship.  Many news sources that will be accepted as reputable third parties - New York Times, BBC etc. - are frequently, blatantly propagandist and will sometimes outright deny facts verifiable by data.

One of my pet issues of concern “peak oil” - and energy issues more generally - is the subject of dozens of stories, by allegedly credible organisations, designed to discredit the concept.  You can look it up.  Conventional crude oil, in fact, reached a production plateau in 2006.  The relevant issue is somewhat confused by competing definitions of conventional crude oil, and the “peak oil” moniker has become problematic.  These problems should never the less not be an impediment to good faith reporting by serious journalists.

The 2006 conventional crude oil production plateau date is based on what I view as the best of three widely used definitions of conventional crude.  My choice attempts to use the definition that is most useful to understanding the relevant issue and greatest significance of the “peak oil” theory.

The peak aspect of the moniker confuses the significance which is reaching the bumpy plateau. The theory is derived from the ability to model the peak and decline in production of an oil field, oil region, or oil producing country roughly fitting a normal distribution or bell curve.  The best researchers expected the world production to follow the bell curve on the way up but predicted it would instead become a bumpy plateau and eventually reach a final steep decline.  Unfortunately, the best researchers that made accurate predictions formed a minority opinion within the peak oil community prior to the production plateau in 2006.

The majority in the peak oil community made embarrassingly linear predictions.  They predicted ever increasing oil prices because of a supply shortage following the peak and subsequent decline in production. Apparently, majority opinion did not think that people and businesses being priced out of the market for oil, as ever diminishing supply became ever more expensive, would disrupt our consumer based and automobile dependent economy.    

John Michael Greer formerly of The Archdruid Report wrote an excellent article that is a must read to understand the phenomenon that did unfold following the production plateau¹. - link - To summarize this article, the increasing price of conventional crude, as a result of  the growth in production not keeping pace with the growth of the economy, encouraged the development of higher cost non-conventional oil.  The lag time from the start of an oil development and bringing supply to market coincided with the lag time of people changing their behaviour in response to higher prices as they felt the economic pinch. Consumers were buying less oil, known as demand destruction, at around the same time a large volume of supply of non-conventional oil became available to the market.  The result was a crash in the price of oil.  This phenomenon has repeated a second time and is likely to continue repeating until the collective consciousness confronts this reality, or the resultant damage to the economy becomes catastrophic.

We will now return to my accusation that the reporting regarding this phenomenon is not done in good faith.  Not understanding the nuance of the true significance of the peak oil theory is the only plausible alternative explanation.  The significance is we have reached the production plateau.  The significance is not the bump along the plateau that is ultimately the absolute production peak.  It is my belief that this nuance is not too complicated for the good people at the NYT and other allegedly reputable organisations to comprehend.

The effort by online platforms to combat fake news by relying on third parties will almost certainly result in censorship of unpopular, though factually verifiable, views from the outset.  The necessary solution is that people must grow up and verify information for themselves if they do not like the results of their failure to do so. The reality of peak (or should I say bumpy plateau) oil will eventually catch up to us just as the reality of President Donald Trump did.  Looking to an authority to determine what information you are exposed to can only end badly.

1 Edited June 28, 2017