[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4474-4475]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        MILITARY ACTION IN LIBYA

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today, as the American naval aviators 
in the Mediterranean wait offshore to fly combat missions against the 
Libyan Army, as marines wait for the call to go ashore to rescue a 
downed pilot, or as Air Force pilots fly combat air patrol, we are 
confident that all military orders will be met with the same 
professionalism and skill we have come to expect of our All-Volunteer 
Force. The valor and loyalty of the men and women of our Nation's Armed 
Forces have never been in question. Yet, despite that certainty, many 
Americans view our military intervention in Libya with anxiety and 
uncertainty. They are wondering why U.S. forces are once again engaged 
in combat action against an Arab regime in the Middle East. They are 
wondering when this operation will end and when their loved ones will 
return. And they are asking another reasonable question: What is the 
mission?
  If the American people are uncertain as to our military objectives in 
Libya, it is with good cause. The President has failed to explain up to 
this point what follows the evident establishment of a no-fly zone over 
Libya as it was originally described. Further, the President has 
articulated a wider political objective of regime change in Libya that 
is not the stated objective of our military intervention, nor is it the 
mandate of the U.N. resolution the President has used as a 
justification for our military efforts there.
  Now that the objective of establishing a no-fly zone has been reached 
and our NATO allies are ready to assume the command and execution of 
this mission, it is fair to ask, what is the role of our military and 
military alliance in providing support to an opposition we are only now 
beginning to understand?
  These concerns and questions are equally relevant here in the Senate 
and in the Congress since it is the responsibility of Congress to 
declare war, if it is war, and, of course, to fund our military 
operations.
  The President stated:

       There is no decision I face as your commander in chief that 
     I consider as carefully as the decision to ask our men and 
     women to use military force. Particularly at a time when our 
     military is fighting in Afghanistan and winding down our 
     activities in Iraq, that decision is only made more 
     difficult.

  Yet this latest decision was taken without adequate consultation with 
Congress or sufficient explanation to the American people.
  Since returning from South America, the President has begun to talk 
in greater detail about our involvement in Libya. For the second time, 
he has discussed our operations in and around Libya with the 
congressional leadership. Over the weekend, he devoted his entire 
address to the topic, and he will speak to the American people tonight 
about our operations in Libya. All of this is welcome and, in my view, 
overdue.
  Before addressing what answers I hope to hear from the President this 
evening, let me address the notifications to Congress that the 
President made.
  Prior to the initiation of combat activities in Libya, the 
congressional leadership received two forms of notification of the 
President's decision to order Americans into harm's way. Prior to 
departing for his overseas trip, the President notified the 
congressional leadership of his plans to send American forces into 
combat action in a limited, discrete role to destroy the integrated air 
defenses of the Libyan Government and to enable our allies to establish 
a no-fly zone over Libya. The second notification was a written 
communication as part of his responsibilities under the War Powers 
Resolution.
  Throughout his communications with the congressional leadership, the 
President has emphasized that the U.S. military would not undertake 
ground combat against the Libyan Army and that the American combat role 
would be limited in time, scope, and would be used simply as a means 
``to set the conditions for our European allies and Arab partners to 
carry out the measures authorized by the U.N. Security Council 
Resolution.''
  The President and his military advisers and commanders have explained 
that the overwhelming American capabilities to destroy enemy air 
defenses, target command-and-control structures, jam communications 
signals, and monitor the battlefield would all be employed to allow 
NATO and the coalition to assume responsibility for the no-fly zone. It 
was the limited nature of our combat role that encouraged me that the 
President was acting within his article II authorities as Commander in 
Chief. And the actions by NATO over the past few days to take over 
command and responsibility for the no-fly zone are consistent with the 
President's commitment that ``limited U.S. actions will set the stage 
for further action by our coalition partners.''
  Here I am reminded of the important contribution of Secretary of 
Defense Robert Gates in advising the President since he came to office. 
The President is fortunate to be able to call upon the wisdom of this 
seasoned national security expert in considering our operations in 
Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. It was Secretary Gates who reminded the 
American people of the risks inherent in military intervention. I know 
his views will be critical as we transfer further responsibilities to 
the coalition, and I hope the administration pays close attention to 
what he says.
  This week, NATO will consider the last part of the mission that must 
be transferred. What the United Nations

[[Page 4475]]

resolution refers to as protection of civilian personnel has included 
attacks on Libyan ground forces and strike missions conducted by 
American warplanes. If U.S. military forces were to have responsibility 
for close air support or execute additional strike missions in support 
of opposition forces, then that, of course, would exceed the 
President's definition of a limited, supporting role. Such a mission 
could last indefinitely and would trigger congressional consideration 
of our larger role in the war.
  My expectation is that the President will explain this transfer of 
responsibility in his speech tonight and that NATO will resolve this 
issue this week, ending our efforts there as the primary force.
  As the commander of U.S. African Command, GEN Carter Ham has said:

       Our mandate--again, our mission--is to protect civilians 
     from attack by the regime ground forces. Our mission is not 
     to support any opposition forces.

  General Ham has also said:

       We do not operate in direct support of the opposition 
     forces.

  So as President Obama addresses the Nation this evening, like many 
Americans, I will be listening for answers to the following questions: 
When will the U.S. combat role in the operation end? Will America's 
commitment end in days, not weeks, as the President promised? What will 
be the duration of the noncombat operation, and what will be the cost? 
What national security interests of the United States justify the risk 
of American life? What is the role of our country in Libya's ongoing 
civil war?
  The President made clear that our combat forces' role in Libya will 
be limited in scope and duration. Tonight, I hope he will reiterate 
that pledge or ask Congress before extending the duration or scope of 
our mission there. And, as always, our thoughts are with the brave 
young Americans in places such as Helmand Province and Baghdad, those 
in Japan helping the Japanese people recover from the natural disaster 
there, and with those who are once again off the shores of Tripoli.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arkansas.

                          ____________________