I haven’t said much about foreign affairs lately, so let’s catch up a bit. The really big news, of course, is the death of Qaddafi in Libya. Some are touting it as a major step forward for “democracy.” While I’m glad the delusional tyrant is gone, don’t count me among those who believe the future is rosy in that part of the world:

Change is not always synonymous with progress.

Speaking of change, that would be nice for Venezuela. Yet it appears Hugo Chavez is hanging on, to the detriment of the country he rules:

And then there’s Iraq. President Obama has declared our mission complete by the end of this year, and most troops will be removed. While I am always glad to keep our soldiers out of harm’s way, this is a bittersweet withdrawal:

I realize we can’t stay forever, and that Iraq must stand on its own, but will this now be a vacuum that Iran will fill? How can that be a better scenario? No easy answers in the Middle East, but it would be tragic if Iran now becomes the neighborhood bully. What’s Obama’s plan about that? Or is this primarily a campaign strategy? Forgive me if my cynicism is showing.

It’s been a while since I’ve said anything about the events in Libya, but a lot has transpired in the past week or so. It’s probably not a subject that interests a majority of our citizens; Libya seems so far away and disconnected from life here. Yet we may be seeing a change similar to what is taking place in Egypt, which can have serious ramifications.

There are still those who tout the so-called “Arab Spring” as a testimony of the desire for freedom. Look at Egypt. What we witness instead is a rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and a turn against Israel. I wasn’t the only one who warned against this back when the protests began. Take off the fantasy glasses and glimpse the reality of that situation. The same applies to Libya.

Who is really going to be in charge there? It’s one thing to get rid of a maniacal dictator; it’s something else entirely to set up a working government. What practice do these rebels have in constructing governments?

It reminds me of President William McKinley’s reasoning when, in 1898, he had to decide whether to take responsibility for the Philippines after the Spanish-American War. His prime consideration was that the people had never governed themselves before, but had been under the thumb of an autocratic Spanish regime for centuries. How then could they be expected to manage on their own? They first had to learn how to govern. A guerrilla war broke out against American control, but eventually died down due to the benign oversight provided by American governors, particularly William Howard Taft. If the guerrillas had taken over, there would have been a repeat of Spanish rule in the sense that a few at the top would have been making all the decisions. It undoubtedly would have devolved into a tyranny. Under American auspices, the Philippines became the first Asian nation to elect its own congress, and finally achieved independence.

Libya is in the same straits. The people have never governed themselves. The most likely outcome will be either an Islamist sect crushing all opposition, or the ascendance of some other tyranny. There will be a bloodbath as they fight for supremacy.

Don’t expect stability anytime soon.

Meanwhile, what has become of Qaddafi [or however you spell it]?

In one way, this is comedy; yet I fear it will be mixed with tragedy.

The War Powers Act has been a focus of attention recently with respect to President Obama’s use of the military in Libya. Passed by the Congress over a veto by President Nixon in 1973, this act says that a president, although commander in chief, cannot exercise that role unless Congress declares a war or gives the president express permission to use the military, or if a national emergency exists because the country is under attack. One feature of the act is a 60-day time limit for use of those troops unless Congress gives approval for an extended time.

Why has it become such a prominent feature in the news now? The president has decided to use the military in Libya without congressional approval. He has now gone beyond the time limit and is in contempt of the law. His rationale is that the troops are not engaged in activities that rise to the level of “hostilities” as defined by the act. Really? Then why are they receiving hazard pay?

In my opinion, this is just one more example of Obamamanian hubris. He’s not someone to let the law get in his way. What provides added angst over his decision to employ American forces in the Libyan conflict is that we don’t even know who the rebels are who are attempting to overthrow Qaddafi. Indications are some of them are Al Qaeda. How ludicrous would that be if this is the case? The entire enterprise is foolish at best, detrimental to our long-range security at worst.

Our government does not consist of merely an executive who can do whatever he wants. Yet that’s how he’s acting.

Has anyone noticed that the Left, which went bananas when President Bush got involved in Afghanistan and Iraq, is silent on our current president’s further involvement in Libya and Yemen? We have four wars now, and the usual handwringers are nowhere to be heard.

How wonderfully double-standard of them.

I’ve been doing some more thinking about President Obama’s decision to lend military aid to Libyan rebels. I’ve critiqued the decision on constitutional grounds—he never consulted Congress. Then I thought about Ronald Reagan’s decision to send troops to Grenada back in 1983. He didn’t consult Congress either. Neither did he do so when he bombed Libya [and the same Qaddafi] in 1985. So that leaves a person open to criticism that a double standard exists.

There are distinct differences, however.

With respect to Grenada, Reagan had a couple of things to consider: first, all the other island nations in the region begged the U.S. for help, fearing that once the Soviets totally controlled Grenada, they might be next; second, there were 800 American medical students in the country. Any advance notice of a military strike would have risked making those students hostages, as our embassy personnel in Iran had been under Carter. Reagan had to move without public debate to ensure their safety. When the operation was over, a few Democratic congressmen started an impeachment movement; it went nowhere because even the Democratic House Speaker Tip O’ Neill agreed with Reagan’s decision.

By the way, those medical students were thrilled to be rescued. Reagan later received them at the White House.

With respect to his bombing of Libya, that was in direct response to Qaddafi’s financing of terrorism, culminating in a bomb at a West Berlin nightclub that killed one American serviceman and injured another 200. Any president has the right to respond to an attack on American citizens.

When George W. Bush sent the military into both Afghanistan and Iraq, it was with congressional approval from both parties. Yet some Democrats, and the liberal left as a whole, have never ceased to castigate him for his actions. He was the devil personified in their eyes.

Yet how do they treat the current president when he sends the military into action—without congressional approval?

They have their enablers as well:

If you want to meditate on a real double standard, I offer this as a fitting subject for such meditation.

Last night, President Obama gave his apologetic for why we are acting against Libya. I’ve said all along I don’t like Qaddafi. Hardly anyone does. When Condi Rice spoke at Southeastern a couple weeks ago, she related what is was like to spend three hours with the man. Her conclusion? He is a madman.

So there’s really no debate on that point. As many have indicated, the real issue is what will follow after him, if he in fact does go. Reports are surfacing that many of those rebels came from the battlefields of Iraq, where they fought against American troops. Now we’re helping them?

Have we crossed the border into the Twilight Zone after all?

As bad as Qaddafi is, will a new government run by jihadists be an improvement—the same people who want to destroy the Great Satan, a.k.a., the United States?

The same question was raised during the Egyptian revolution earlier. That question is even more valid today. A report in the New York Times [of all places], reveals that the Muslim Brotherhood is coming to the forefront of that revolution, and that the moderate elements who thought they were in control are being pushed to the background. For more on that, go to this site.

Bottom line: things are coming to a head in that region and we are not in control, despite any assurances offered by the administration.

We aren’t the only losers in this scenario. One nation in the area, Israel, is more threatened than ever by these developments. There’s a Biblical admonition that is appropriate for our times: pray for the peace of Israel.

There’s nothing like having a clear mission statement on the Libyan bombing: we’re bombing but we aren’t doing it for regime change. In other words, we’re totally opposed to Qaddafi continuing as “leader” of that nation, but our bombing is not intended to remove him from power.

In what universe does that make sense?

I freely admit that he should be removed from power. In the past, he has been the primary supporter of terrorism. Reagan called him a barbarian—actually, a “flaky” barbarian. And he bombed Libya, too, but it was a direct response to an act of terrorism that took the lives of American soldiers. He had the authority to act in that case. He also didn’t mince words about the intent of the bombing; it was to take Qaddafi out. He almost succeeded.

What is our goal this time? What are we trying to stop?

I was informed by some serious former students that because we are part of the UN, we have to take part in this, and that our obligations via that organization supersede, in effect, our own Constitution. Well, if that’s the case, it’s time to separate ourselves from that organization. We should never subordinate our Constitution to anything the UN says.

Most of the world was waiting to see what President Obama was going to do. They waited … and waited … and … well, you get the idea. Although my primary objection to his being in the highest office in the land is his ideology, there’s also a case to be made [and some of us tried hard to make it in 2008] that he really had no experience in an executive capacity. He spent most of his time in the Illinois Senate voting “present.” He then spent most of his time as a U.S. senator running for president. This on-the-job training is hard on all of us.

Moammar Qaddafi has been a renegade and terrorist supporter for decades. He deserves to be toppled. I want to see him go. I do have some issues, though, with how we have decided to handle this current Libyan crisis. My concerns are constitutional.

I could try to explain those concerns, but someone else has already done it so superbly that I will defer to him.

Andrew McCarthy, in a piece in National Review, lays out the best arguments I’ve seen for how to proceed constitutionally in a situation such as this. He makes clear distinctions between times when it is acceptable for a president to act on his own initiative and when he must first get congressional approval for military actions. I find his arguments persuasive, so I recommend you read what he has so carefully considered. You can go to his article here. I trust you will find it thoughtful and will appreciate his fidelity to constitutional principles as we try to discern the proper way to respond to the all-too-familiar chaos engulfing the Islamic world.