Agroup of hard-left Democrats, led by Manhattan Rep. Jerry Nadler, is questioning the constitutionality of US military strikes in Libya.
They may have a point.
We’re not under any illusions that Nadler & Co. are demonstrating anything but their reflexive antipathy to any display of US military force. But certainly it is fair to ask just what Team Obama is up to.
Two weeks ago, the president said Col. Khadafy “must go.”
Over the weekend, he said Khadafy’s removal was definitely not the mission’s objective.
Then, in Chile yesterday, the president said again that Khadafy “needs to go” — that is, to “step down from power.”
But Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said that “potentially one outcome” of the operation is that Khadafy would remain in power.
So which is it?
Meanwhile, this much is clear:
* There was no pre-attack consultation with Congress — which is Nadler’s point, and a good one.
* There is no evidence that anyone in Washington has a clue as to who the beneficiaries of the intervention actually are — or what their real objectives may be.
The public is told the intervention is “humanitarian” in intent — and that regime-change is not its real goal. But if Khadafy isn’t forced out, how long will the humanitarian crisis last?
That is, how long can an alliance comprising the US, France, Britain, Qatar, Bahrain and the Arab League be expected to last — given that the league is already talking weasel words?
And if Khadafy is deposed — then what?
Little wonder that Team Obama wants no guff from Congress.
For all the complaints by Democrats that President George W. Bush acted “unilaterally,” he did not begin the Afghan and Iraqi wars without congressional resolutions specifically authorizing the use of force.
Then-Sen. Barack Obama, in fact, insisted in 2007 that “the president does not have the authority under the Constitution to authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
But if Khadafy poses an “imminent threat to the nation,” Obama has yet to identify how.
Nor, apparently, is the US in touch with the forces we’re trying to protect.
That’s according to Gen. Carter Ham, head of the Africa Command and chief enforcer of the no-fly zone, who said, “We’ve had no official communication” with the anti-Khadafy rebels.
It’s difficult to believe that there’s been no contact at the special-forces level — so maybe that explains Ham’s use of the “official” qualifier.
Then again, there’s nothing equivocal about Obama’s promise that no American combat boots will touch Libyan soil.
So who knows?
Of course, Obama may come to regret that vow; the last decade has shown that Mideast military operations rarely proceed according to plan.
To be sure, laying out a detailed end-game isn’t always useful — you don’t want to tell the enemy what you’re up to.
But, in this case, it’s hard not to suspect that the president and his team really don’t know what they want.
Still, let it be said that humanitarian missions, like the one ostensibly under way in Libya, are entirely consistent with America’s historic sentiments.
We pray that this one goes well — and quickly.