The Global Warfare State and the Independent Anti-War Movement

Barack Obama, March 19, 2011:
Today I authorized the Armed Forces of the United States to begin a limited military action in Libya in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians.  That action has now begun. In this effort, the United States is acting with a broad coalition that is committed to enforcing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which calls for the protection of the Libyan people . . .
George Bush, March 19, 2003:
On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign. More than 35 countries are giving crucial support . . .
Though neither Obama nor Bush bothered to obtain a declaration of war from the Congress as stipulated by the Constitution ahead of these military actions, at least Bush sought an "authorization for the use of military force" before launching his misguided invasion and occupation of Iraq.  Obama cannot even claim ignorance on the matter.  As he told The Boston Globe in an interview from 2007:
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
The global warfare state and imperial presidency promoted by the Democratic and Republican parties is a grave threat to Constitutional government in the United States.  It is no coincidence that the anti-war movement is now dominated by independents and third party supporters.  A graph from a 2010 study of the anti-war movement (.pdf) from the University of Michigan:

1 comment:

TiradeFaction said...

This is something where Green and Libertarian (among other parties) can join forces, and hopefully build an independent anti war movement, electorally and otherwise.