In the debate of H. Con. Res. 51, California Democratic Congressman Peter Stark took note, as many others did, of the unconstitutional nature of the U.S. entry into the Libyan civil war. Stark said:

“With no stated goal, no input from Congress and no end in site, a continuation of our involvement in Libya is unreasonable and unconstitutional. With Congress considering cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and other vital programs, we cannot afford yet another war.

We have now been involved in a war with Libya for over 60 days with no constitutionally required authorization for the use of military force or declaration of war. And we were not attacked. It is time for Congress to reassert its Constitutional war powers authority and end the war in Libya.”

In this statement, Stark refers to the requirements of the War Powers Resolution, which only allows the President of the United States to start a war without congressional authorization when the United States and its holdings have been attacked. The history of the Libyan conflict is clear – the government of Libya did not initiate attacks against the United States, and in its limited engagement with U.S. military forces, the Libyan government has only sought to defend itself from American bombings of Libyan cities. There is no evidence that the government of Moammar Qaddafi has attempted to retaliate in an attack against the United States itself. So, in addition to constitutional problems, the U.S. involvement in the war in Libya appears to be illegal, violating the War Powers Resolution, as well.

Many of the war’s supporters in Congress have chosen to ignore the unconstitutionality and illegality of the U.S. rush to war in Libya. They have a personal belief that fighting a third war is good for the United States, so they’re willing to overlook the requirements of law.

Seeking another argument, in a direct appeal to the Democratic Party’s liberal base, Congressman Stark sought to connect the war in Libya to the Republican attempt to dismantle Medicare. The war in Libya has already taken almost a billion dollars in American funds and tossed it away into the North African desert. Now that the war has turned into a stalemate, with Moammar Qaddafi failing to crumple as Barack Obama expected him to do, NATO involvement in the war, and along with it, American involvement, appears to be on the verge of a significant escalation.

An escalation of the war in Libya would mean an increase in the already high rate of government spending on the war. That means higher deficits, and that means more pressure to find places to cut budgets – and Medicare is a major target.

The war in Libya has failed to reach its goals, and it’s endangering the livelihoods of people back here in the United States. Putting aside considerations of the rule of law, Peter Stark has shown that economic arguments can be a serious component of arguments against the continuation of Obama’s Libyan blunder.