The Congressional vote was simple: to direct President Barack Obama pursuant to the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from Libya. The 60 days provided for in the law for the president to notify Congress had expired. Would the House of Representatives exercise its power and demand the president follow the law? Would a Democratic Party that had opposed commitment of forces by Republican presidents do the same for one of their own?

As it came to pass, a higher percentage of Democrats opposed removing the troops than did Republicans. Indeed, both parties were split in almost the same way. One third of Democrats voted to remove U.S. forces as did four in ten Republicans. The Democrats were easy to identify. They were the anti-war faction led by perennial pacifist Dennis Kucinich of Ohio. The amendment’s co-sponsor, however, was rock-ribbed conservative Republican Dan Burton of Indiana. In the end only 61 Democrats stuck to their anti-war principles but 87 Republicans voted to remove U.S. troops from Libya. What was going on?

Sure Ron Paul voted for troop removal but so did fellow Texan and decorated Korean and Vietnam wars veteran Sam Johnson and they were joined by Iraq war vet Allen West of Florida. Libertarian Jeff Flake of Arizona was joined by conservative warhorses John Duncan, Scott Garrett, Andy Harris, Jack Kingston, Joe Pitts, Ed Royce, Jim Sensenbrenner, former conservative caucus head Tom Price, and many others. In fact, 21 Congressmen with100 percent American Conservative Union ratings voted to remove U.S. forces. Even Michelle Bachmann, certainly no shrinking violet pacifist, was among the opponents. Her explanation was simple: “I was opposed to the U.S. involvement in Libya from the beginning. President Obama has never made a compelling case on Libya.”

Congressman Burton was equally straightforward. In responding to the Wall Street Journal claim that President Obama had the right to stay in Libya, he replied: “President Obama has the authority to manage a war but not the power to start a war. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war and the War Powers Resolution was enacted to fulfill that intent” unless there is a declaration of war, a specific authorization by Congress or an emergency. The president claimed an emergency and if there was one he could act with a surgical strike but not with two full months of engagement. He claimed he could not consult Congress even though he consulted for a month with NATO, the Arab League and the U.N. President George W. Bush consulted even in the clearer emergency of the 9/11 terrorist attack. “The Constitution is not a list of suggestions,” he concluded, and the president must obey it.

Congressman West added that “Since the opening hours of military action on March 19th, President Barack Obama has had no clear direction in Libya. The President has not defined the mission nor the end state of this conflict. Further, the President has not identified who the so-called rebels are that continue to receive millions of dollars of American support in terms of weapons, ammunition, and resources.  As a 22-year Army combat veteran, I can tell you from experience that successful mission completion is obtained by properly defining the very things I have mentioned, which President Obama has failed to do. We cannot continue this ‘mission creep’ kind of warfare. President Barack Obama is in violation of the law – plain and simple – and he must be held accountable.”

While two-thirds of Congress ignored these arguments, House Speaker John Boehner was moved to introduce a compromise that provided President Obama 14 additional days to explain the Libya involvement but also provided “that the President shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of units and members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Libya, and for other purposes.” This restriction earned the majority support of 223 Republicans (but only 45 Democrats). When President Obama claimed the Libya engagement did not trigger the Resolution, Speaker Boehner promised a further Congressional response, which included a court challenge. Was the GOP simply being partisan in opposing a Democratic president’s foreign policy adventure? Have these Republicans become pacifists, as the Journal suggested?

In fact, conservatives and Republicans historically have been more questioning of foreign policy troop engagement than have Democrats and liberals. Like Bachmann, conservatives are practical. Like West they are suspicious of vague missions and mission creep. Most of all, like Burton they believe in following the law and especially the Constitution. Both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich followed Bachman at the recent presidential debate to express reservations about Libya. While Ronald Reagan is often invoked as supporting war and an active world military involvement, he in fact committed fewer U.S. troops to military activities overseas than any post World War II president other than Jimmy Carter. When he did commit troops he set specific goals, was decisive, and ended engagements quickly. He once told the world, “Our foreign policy, as President Eisenhower once said, ‘is not difficult to state. We are for peace first, last, and always…” He did give moral support to threatened peoples everywhere but he would only commit troops when direct American interests were involved. [See here, and here.]

These Republican actions regarding Libya are simply a return to the traditional conservative and Republican foreign policy of precise missions and achievable goals – only in the pursuit of America’s just interests and by respecting its limited Constitution and laws. In voting to restrict the Libya involvement, Republicans are merely coming home.

Donald Devine was the director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management from 1981 to 1985 under Ronald Reagan and is the editor of ConservativeBattleline Online.