If You Supported the No Fly Zone, Time to Reconsider

03/25/2011 12:49 pm ET | Updated May 25, 2011

It was hard for some peace activists to look at the planned attack by Col. Gaddafi on Libyan rebels and oppose the no-fly zone approved by the U.N. Col. Gaddafi is a vicious leader who promised to make the streets run red with blood so this was an issue that divided the peace community.

Regardless of how you felt about the original no fly zone, how you feel about the Gaddafi regime or the armed rebels fighting it, we should all recognize that the United States, United Kingdom and France are going further than a no-fly zone and are intervening in a civil war for their own reasons that have nothing to do with defending democracy or other humanitarian goals. Already we are seeing evidence of the broader mission beyond a no-fly zone.

The Libyan attack raises a persistent issue in U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. trained the Libyan military and provided them with weapons, including $15 million in arms sales in FY 2009 alone. Now the U.S. military is destroying that same military and the weapons the U.S. sold them. Should the U.S., the largest arms merchant in the world which sells nearly 70% of all weapons, be selling weapons to despots, dictators and royalists who do not have the support of their people? Doesn't this ensure rebellions seeking democracy will be met with lethal force and the U.S. may need to intervene for "humanitarian" reasons? President Obama has produced record arms sales, in particular the largest arms sale in history to one country with $60 billion in sales to Saudi Arabia, another unpopular regime among its people.

Finally, the Constitutional issue of unilateral military attacks on countries that are not a threat to the United States was violated by the attack on Libya and needs to be faced up to. When he was running for office, candidate Obama correctly said: "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." James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution wrote in 1795 that Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which put the power to declare war and fund war in the hands of the legislature, was the most important clause of the constitution.

"The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war [and] the power of raising armies. A delegation of such powers [to the president] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments. The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted."

The founders had seen monarchs unilaterally declare war resulting in mass deaths and economic ruin. Indeed, the U.S. with an already fragile economy and stretched thin military faces those risks with the Libyan war. Already the U.S. has used more than 150 Tomahawk Cruise missiles against Libya, each one costing $1.5 million. On the first day the U.S. spent an estimated $100 million on the Libyan attack. And, people are estimating that the U.S. will spend $1 billion in Libya in a very short time. This will all be borrowed money and comes at a time when austerity measures are being put in place by state and federal governments cutting basic services.

Please call President Obama and give him your thoughts about Libya. Tell him to avoid mission creep and another military quagmire. The White House switchboard is 202-456-1414.

Kevin Zeese is co-founder of Voters For Peace and directs Come Home America which brings people from across the political spectrum to oppose war and empire.cal spectrum to oppose war and empire.