What if the Libya war happened in the US?

[Hobo1]

I want to relate the Libyan situation to the United States to see if different rules apply to different countries. Are some countries more equal than others?

SCENARIO
What would happen if a sufficient number of American citizens were able to organize themselves into a large band of rebels to overthrow the US government? This might happen if the President openly violated the Constitution by, say, declared a unilateral, 6 month ban on free speech - all forms of news and opinion on the TV, newspapers, and Internet would be censored or banned by the government.

The reason for a US revolution is not important. But whatever action taken by the government was sufficiently grievous to cause a very large number of Americans to organize and take up arms in an attempt to take back the government for the people.

I would assume, as in Libya, that the general population would be split in its loyalties. I also would assume the military would follow orders to put down the rebellion with a "minimum of civilian casualties". However, the rebel fighters would most likely fight a guerrilla style warfare; that is, quickly fight and then return to their homes and blend in with other civilians. So, as in Afghanistan, identifying and killing civilian combatants would be difficult. How would the government fight such a rebellion?

Let's assume the government tries to send soldiers into the areas experiencing the most rebel activity to basically perform police action, ie, to keep the peace. This would be difficult because soldiers wear uniforms and rebel fighters do not. Any soldier walking down the street could be victim of a rebel hidden a block away with a hunting rifle.

Anyway after a few months of fighting the rebels have had several significant victories. For example, inflicting significant casualties on a several Battalions (1000 men each) of soldiers policing a metropolitan area. These victories cause the military to retreat into heavily fortified areas. So the metropolitan area is now essentially controlled by the rebel forces, but also is home to a lot of innocent civilians.

I can't think of a method whereby the military could re-take control of the area without resorting to the use of some weapon that could destroy a whole neighborhood where many rebels are suspected of living. But this would also kill many civilians, women and children.

Now we are close to the situation in Libya. Large numbers of civilians being killed. So the UN passes a Resolution that says the President is acting inhumanely and authorizes foreign countries to engage the US military and destroy all aircraft, missile launchers, etc. that could be be used to indiscriminately kill innocent civilians.

Assuming there existed a group of countries (Russia, China, etc) with sufficient military strength to defeat US military defenses, would you support such a UN Resolution?

I am interested to other opinions first. Then I will give my answer. For the sake of discussion, let's not nit-pic the scenario, such as "This could never happen". Can any country really fight a humane revolution?

Opinions anyone?

 

[BigRob]

I want to relate the Libyan situation to the United States to see if different rules apply to different countries. Are some countries more equal than others?

SCENARIO
What would happen if a sufficient number of American citizens were able to organize themselves into a large band of rebels to overthrow the US government? This might happen if the President openly violated the Constitution by, say, declared a unilateral, 6 month ban on free speech - all forms of news and opinion on the TV, newspapers, and Internet would be censored or banned by the government.

The reason for a US revolution is not important. But whatever action taken by the government was sufficiently grievous to cause a very large number of Americans to organize and take up arms in an attempt to take back the government for the people.

I would assume, as in Libya, that the general population would be split in its loyalties. I also would assume the military would follow orders to put down the rebellion with a "minimum of civilian casualties". However, the rebel fighters would most likely fight a guerrilla style warfare; that is, quickly fight and then return to their homes and blend in with other civilians. So, as in Afghanistan, identifying and killing civilian combatants would be difficult. How would the government fight such a rebellion?

Let's assume the government tries to send soldiers into the areas experiencing the most rebel activity to basically perform police action, ie, to keep the peace. This would be difficult because soldiers wear uniforms and rebel fighters do not. Any soldier walking down the street could be victim of a rebel hidden a block away with a hunting rifle.

Anyway after a few months of fighting the rebels have had several significant victories. For example, inflicting significant casualties on a several Battalions (1000 men each) of soldiers policing a metropolitan area. These victories cause the military to retreat into heavily fortified areas. So the metropolitan area is now essentially controlled by the rebel forces, but also is home to a lot of innocent civilians.

I can't think of a method whereby the military could re-take control of the area without resorting to the use of some weapon that could destroy a whole neighborhood where many rebels are suspected of living. But this would also kill many civilians, women and children.

Now we are close to the situation in Libya. Large numbers of civilians being killed. So the UN passes a Resolution that says the President is acting inhumanely and authorizes foreign countries to engage the US military and destroy all aircraft, missile launchers, etc. that could be be used to indiscriminately kill innocent civilians.

Assuming there existed a group of countries (Russia, China, etc) with sufficient military strength to defeat US military defenses, would you support such a UN Resolution?

I am interested to other opinions first. Then I will give my answer. For the sake of discussion, let's not nit-pic the scenario, such as "This could never happen". Can any country really fight a humane revolution?

Opinions anyone?

Since the US can veto a UNSC Resolution, it would never happen.

But as you requested, we will discount that. I would say that yes, some countries are more equal than others...for example, if this was occurring in Saudi Arabia, would we be involved? China? Yemen? Bahrain?

World opinion just all converged in an effort to "protect civilians", which historically never turns out to be a good basis for intervention. Getting involved in Libya was and is a bad idea in my opinion. If we had anything to actually gain by intervening, I would rethink the idea, but we don't really....so there is no reason to intervene.

 

[Rick]

This has sort of already happened. During the US civil war, the south courted recognition from Britain and France. Britain was close to granting it while the south was winning. On can then imagine that British warships might have started escorting southern bloackade running ships taking cotton to britain and returning with armaments, and eventually being drawn into war with the US, as it already had been twice before and as recently as the war of 1812.

 

[Hobo1]

This has sort of already happened. During the US civil war, the south courted recognition from Britain and France. Britain was close to granting it while the south was winning. On can then imagine that British warships might have started escorting southern bloackade running ships taking cotton to britain and returning with armaments, and eventually being drawn into war with the US, as it already had been twice before and as recently as the war of 1812.

I guess the heart of the issue is should other (larger) countries become involved in civil wars? I know it has been done. The US has protected Taiwan (formerly Formosa) from invasion by Communist China. If the answer is yes, then what justifications are ethically fitting?

To site your example of running the blockade would be for economical reasons - Britain needed cotton. In Libya, others have suggested Europe needs the oil. The UN and Obama cite humanitarian reasons of protecting civilians - which I suspect is not the real answer either.

Is there a God given right that a country has the right to fight a civil war without the interference from foreign countries? After all, it is Libyans fighting Libyans to determine the future of their country. The fact that we are all rooting for the rebels doesn't mean we should tilt the playing field, does it?

 

[Rick]

I guess the heart of the issue is should other (larger) countries become involved in civil wars?

Why shouldn't they?

I know it has been done. The US has protected Taiwan (formerly Formosa) from invasion by Communist China.

What you call "Taiwan" is an independent nation called the Republic of China. No civil war is being fought there.

Is there a God given right that a country has the right to fight a civil war without the interference from foreign countries?

Never heard of that.

After all, it is Libyans fighting Libyans to determine the future of their country. The fact that we are all rooting for the rebels doesn't mean we should tilt the playing field, does it?

Do you REALLY believe a blood-thirsty killer like Kaddafy is entitled to a "level pl;aying field"???

 

[Dr.Who]

Why shouldn't they?

That country might have a constitution that says wars can be waged only to suppress an insurrection or to repel invaders.

The constitution might have further language about wars being defensive.

And the president might be limited by a War Powers Act that says he can only deploy troops when we are attacked unless congress authorizes it.

But if they do not have such laws in their constitution then they can wage war for whatever reason they want including cracking ones soft boiled eggs on the wrong end.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilliput_and_Blefuscu

 

[Hobo1]

Why shouldn't they?

I like Dr. Who's response, but I was thinking in terms of allowing people of a country to decide their own fate. The Declaration of Independence says,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[72] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

What you call "Taiwan" is an independent nation called the Republic of China. No civil war is being fought there.

Catch up on your history Rick. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_after_World_War_II

Do you REALLY believe a blood-thirsty killer like Kaddafy(sic) is entitled to a "level pl;aying field"???

Yes I do. No ruler can stand up against the wrath of dissatisfied and determined citizenry, as long as the dissatisfaction is deeply widespread throughout the nation. Apparently the army is willing to stand behind Gaddafi. So apparently he has support among part of the population. I am not even sure the Rebels represent a majority of the population. If the citizens of a country are so dissatisfied, they will be able to find a way to overthrow the government - or at least modify its leadership (as in Egypt recently). The Egyptian revolution didn't require foreign intervention.

From what I have read, no one knows who these rebels are and what philosophy they represent. They may be as blood thirsty as Gaddafi. Let the rebels prove their superiority on a level playing field.

 

[Rick]

I like Dr. Who's response, but I was thinking in terms of allowing people of a country to decide their own fate. The Declaration of Independence says,

To try to compare the Declaration, which implies a democratically established government, with a situation in which the most bloodthirsty will come out on top, and cavalierly calling that "allowing people of a country to decide their own fate" goes beyond stupid to sick.

Catch up on your history Rick. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_after_World_War_II

Meaningless text dump of a hundred years of history - who knows what you're talking about. Once again, "Taiwan" is an independent country officially named the Republic of China.

Yes I do. No ruler can stand up against the wrath of dissatisfied and determined citizenry, as long as the dissatisfaction is deeply widespread throughout the nation.

Nonsense, and just more of your historical ignorance. Many dicatators from Hitler to saddam hussein were only brought down by external forces, inspite of determined internal attempts from within their own countries.

 

[Dr.Who]

To try to compare the Declaration, which implies a democratically established government, with a situation in which the most bloodthirsty will come out on top, and cavalierly calling that "allowing people of a country to decide their own fate" goes beyond stupid to sick.

That section of the Declaration was intended to mean that under ANY government the people had the right to overthrow it.

It does not mean that those people cannot receive help from outside.

I am all in favor of the Libyan people receiving help from outside. I do not think that the US federal government has the constitutional authority to provide such help. Other governments or individuals might.

I agree that there is no guarantee that the Libyan people will come out on top - with our without help. Whether or not they prevail or lose or whether or not they suffer huge losses or slight ones does not matter in determining if US Federal involvement is constitutional or not. The only thing that determines if the US Fed has the authority to intervene is a statement in the constitutions giving the fed that power.

 

[Rick]

Where did this "rule" come from whereby any forces within a country are free to slaughter everyone they want, without outside involvement, as long as they stay within their borders? I'm NOT suggesting the US jump into any and every civil war, and I don't think the Libya involvement is a good idea, but the implication that any internal murderous, well-organized and well-armed group taking over a country is somehow "the people" deciding a country's fate is preposterous.

 

[Dr.Who]

Where did this "rule" come from whereby any forces within a country are free to slaughter everyone they want, without outside involvement, as long as they stay within their borders? I'm NOT suggesting the US jump into any and every civil war, and I don't think the Libya involvement is a good idea, but the implication that any internal murderous, well-organized and well-armed group taking over a country is somehow "the people" deciding a country's fate is preposterous.

I don't believe there is a rule that the rebels can do whatever they want without being stopped by outside forces (though I thought we were initially discussing the official leadership being stopped).

But there is a rule that the US gov should limit itself to wars that are defensive. I don't know exactly how hard and fast that rule is but the words of the constitution clearly give that intent.

But if the "rule" you are talking about is the one that the people have a right to overthrow their government then that rule comes from the writings of John Locke. I suspect John would have supported rebellions that were not murderous and would not have cared if there were outside forces involved or not. If I remember my history correctly the Founding Fathers of the US had plenty of outside help. If government is by consent then rebellions are the natural corollary.

 

[Rick]

I don't believe there is a rule that the rebels can do whatever they want without being stopped by outside forces (though I thought we were initially discussing the official leadership being stopped).

I was referring to the idea repeated since the vietnam war that nobody should "meddle" in the "internal affairs" of another country, eg stop a wanton slaughter.

But there is a rule that the US gov should limit itself to wars that are defensive. I don't know exactly how hard and fast that rule is but the words of the constitution clearly give that intent.

Where would that be in the constitution? And constitution aside, why should the US limit itself to defensive wars? And what is the definition of a defensive war?

I suspect John would have supported rebellions that were not murderous and would not have cared if there were outside forces involved or not. If I remember my history correctly the Founding Fathers of the US had plenty of outside help.

Exactly.

 

[Dr.Who]

I was referring to the idea repeated since the vietnam war that nobody should "meddle" in the "internal affairs" of another country, eg stop a wanton slaughter.

I was having trouble following. Probably my own denseness.

Where would that be in the constitution? And constitution aside, why should the US limit itself to defensive wars? And what is the definition of a defensive war?

If we put aside the Constitution (as it seems happens far too often) then any whim would be a valid reason for a war.

I admit that the constitution is not as clear as I would hope, which is why I was honest in saying I didn't know how "hard and fast" the constitutional rule was.

The enumerated list gives congress the power to declare war. They cannot wage war. Congress can also call for the army to be put into play but do not get to direct its actions: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;" The reasons given for congress to call the militia would be to suppress insurrections and repel invasions. I have no doubt at all the founding fathers did not intend for he insurrections being suppressed to be in other countries.

The President on the other hand can wage war but cannot declare it. Once the services of the army are called be directs their actions: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" He can only direct their actions in the service of the US.

Putting those two limitations together we see that a war must be waged in the service of the US and declared to suppress insurrections or repel invasions (or execute the laws of the US).

The humanitarian mission in Libya meets none of those except when one stretches the law beyond reason. The fact is that the constitution does not even allow the expenditure of money for humanitarian causes here in the US much less abroad, and since wars cost money...

 

[Rick]

I was having trouble following. Probably my own denseness.



If we put aside the Constitution (as it seems happens far too often) then any whim would be a valid reason for a war.

I wasn't aware the constitution spelled out the criteria for war.

I admit that the constitution is not as clear as I would hope, which is why I was honest in saying I didn't know how "hard and fast" the constitutional rule was.

The enumerated list gives congress the power to declare war. They cannot wage war. Congress can also call for the army to be put into play but do not get to direct its actions: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;" The reasons given for congress to call the militia would be to suppress insurrections and repel invasions. I have no doubt at all the founding fathers did not intend for he insurrections being suppressed to be in other countries.

The President on the other hand can wage war but cannot declare it. Once the services of the army are called be directs their actions: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" He can only direct their actions in the service of the US.

Putting those two limitations together we see that a war must be waged in the service of the US and declared to suppress insurrections or repel invasions (or execute the laws of the US).

Has the USSC ever ruled on this?

 

[Hobo1]

I wasn't aware the constitution spelled out the criteria for war.

Well, you should be aware that Constitution does not define the meaning of any words. Interstate commerce is another broad term that causes constant confusion.

However, whenever a country shoots over 100 tomahawk missiles into a another country, violates the airspace of a country (dropping bombs in the process), and shoots down that country's airplanes, I find it unbelievable that anyone would not classify that as war.

Has the USSC ever ruled on this?

Regrettably no, despite numerous opportunities to do so.