One resolution would mirror a version proposed Tuesday by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) that authorizes a limited U.S. military mission for one year, but prohibits the use of ground troops except to defend American officials in danger. The other resolution, Boehner said, would remove U.S. forces from Libya under the War Powers Resolution “except for forces engaged in non-hostile actions such as search & rescue, aerial re-fueling, operational planning, intelligence/surveillance/reconnaissance, and non-combat missions.”
So one resolution lets us continue to provide the bulk of the support missions and continue to shoot in limited circumstances; while the other lets us continue to provide the bulk of the support missions and ends the limited circumstances where we could shoot. That's a choice? What's the practical difference?
If either resolution is passed, we basically continue on the same road we are on. The only advantage is to the Obama administration which gets the embarrassing situation of being in violation of the War Powers Act lifted and gains the support of Congress which will share in the blame if our coalition splinters before we can win.
If the House of Representatives wants to offer a real choice to its members, it should declare war on Libya and establish real objectives for actual victory.
