Obama v. Boehner (and everyone else in Congress)

Via the Washington Post: Boehner Presses Obama on Libya Action

In the wake of unrest in Libya, Obama faced the nation this past week to let them know the U.S. will be serving a supporting role in the UN established no-fly zone.

In this WaPo article, Speaker of the House John Boehner voiced his reservations over the lack of defined goals regarding U.S. involvement. What makes this article so interesting is the fact that there is potentially a Constitutional issue at stake. While the War Powers Act authorizes the President to commit troops in times of immediate danger, that clear and present danger is all but present to members of Congress. Furthermore, if U.S. involvement lasts more than sixty days, Obama will need explicit consent from Congress and funding to do so, or else execute a quick withdrawal.

Similarly, Boehner and other Congressional members from both sides of the aisle wished Obama had taken more time to consult with them before agreeing to commit troops to the action.

So why did this story make the news?

Easy: Conflict.

The bipartisan desire for Obama to be more clear on how U.S. involvement would benefit relations with the Middle East and demonstrate commitment to UN sanctions. Conflict between the two branches is nothing new, but it's definitely newsworthy. The constitutional issue is just an added bonus, especially prone to close scrutiny by the media as our time there inches towards sixty days.

There's also the fear that we could be committing ourselves to another war. Our military is already spread thin between Afghanistan and with the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The potential for another military engagement is timely and important, affecting families nationwide.

Further, how does the administration balance the need for stability and the desire to promote freedom and perhaps democracy in another country with the need to fulfill an obligation to the UN resolution? We also have perhaps one of the most capable militaries, with Britain and France, who are both partners in the air-strikes, not far behind. The U.S. is a strong country whose presence in the international community and coveted partnership make it a key and necessary ally. What does it mean for the rebels fighting for freedom in the region when we back out? It's a hard but necessary balance to strike. No wonder its making headlines.

Regardless, this crisis, while difficult, puts both the President and Congress on notice. And we'll be watching to see how it all turns out.