Libyan Observations

[1] The President did not follow the Constitution in declaring this war.

[2] Libya posed no threat to the United States.

[3] The internal affairs of Libya are for the Libyan people or possibly her immediate neighbors to decide.

[4] Where are the massive antiwar demonstrations and the breathless coverage of them from our media? Oh wait, this war was launched by a liberal, so therefore it is okay. The only wars that need to be fought are those launched by Republicans, so as to kneecap them and bring them down. Don’t get me wrong, Iraq was also worth opposing, but all that vehemence is gone when Clinton bombs Kosovo or Obama bombs Libya.

[5] Both parties are united in our horrible foreign policy. We need a consistently non-interventionist option out there. Right now, the Ron Paul wing is probably the best thing going on that front, but it needs to widen greatly. Unfortunately, I don’t believe this will happen due to the strength of the military-industrial complex. The only thing that will stop our insanity is the collapse of our nation, similar to what the British experienced at Suez. I think that day of reckoning is not far off.

3 thoughts on “Libyan Observations”

  1. Good thoughts, Joel. I think that one major difference between Libya/Kosovo and Iraq is that there was an ongoing humanitarian crisis with a credible resistance, which doesn’t seem to have been the case in Iraq. Iraq was a purely chosen war whereas the other two had a more immediate cause. I think the way that the Bush administration pursued the war engendered more opposition, in addition to the other factors that you mentioned. Also, Iraq was openly presented as conquest and replacement with a friendly government, while Libya and Kosovo have avoided that imperial-sounding rhetoric.

    Both presidents asserted their right to act without Congressional approval, but Bush wanted a vote in Congress while Obama doesn’t seem to care. My feeling is that we need to make something like the War Powers Resolution (, which is ignored by most presidents, into a Constitutional amendment.

  2. There is an ongoing humanitarian crisis in Iran with credible resistance too. When does the USA start bombing?

    ‎”The Confession then goes on to list one major implication of the preceding teaching: “so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the new testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion.” Similar to the granting of the sword in section 1, section 2 now grants the powers of war to the magistrate—over against the claims of the Anabaptists that it was illegitimate. However, the lawfulness of warfare is (as with the power of the sword) delimited by two clauses: “for that
    end” (viz., the maintenance of piety, justice, and peace) and “upon just and necessary occasion.” When these conditions are combined it is evident that the Westminster Confession sanctions only defensive warfare:
    that is, warfare which is strictly for the end of preserving peace,
    which is according to justice (thus not aggressive or provoking another to violate peace), and which is the last resort left to a nation (and consequently necessary to engage in). The Confession does not give a blanket approval to all warfare, and this grounds the right of selective conscientious objection in this day. No man, even the magistrate, has the right to take the life of another without explicit warrant from God Himself; that warrant is given in the case of capital offenses and in the
    case of self-defense. The warrant for aggressive warfare came only to Israel by direct revelation and upon special circumstances (God’s temporal judgment upon an abominable society). Since such direct revelation has ceased today, no nation can claim the right to aggressive warfare or to policing the world (for whatever proffered rationale: e.g., “to make the world safe for democracy,” “to end all wars,” “to guarantee the right of national self-determination”). When a magistrate goes to war for an unjustified cause, then the Christian who follows the Westminster Confession has the duty (not merely the right) to resist this practice of murder. However, when the state fights wars of self-defense it has divine approval, and the Christian should support such a cause (since pacificism is an unwarranted demand according to the Westminster Confession). Finally, observe that the Confession goes to specific lengths to indicate that warfare is not against the New Testament dispensation or its ethic. Not only could war be sanctioned in the Old Testament, but magistrates can lawfully “now under the new testament” wage war as well. The writers of the Confession felt that there was continuity between the ethical standard of the Old Testament and that of the New; therefore, even after the advent of Christ a just war remains a lawful possibility to the civil magistrate.”
    Theonomy In Christian Ethics by Gregg Bahnsen (Pages 503-504)

  3. Yes, that is the just war position of Augustine and Aquinas. I agree with Bahnsen. Both parties seem to care less about just war theory.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.