By Emily Cadei

Tea party-backed Republican freshmen in Congress are facing the first American military campaign initiated under their watch, and their reactions have varied dramatically.

Many have vehemently opposed U.S. participation in an internationally imposed “no fly” zone over Libya, while others have blasted President Obama for not acting faster.

The split is another sign that while elected officials within the tea party movement share a common philosophy on economic issues, that affiliation often has little bearing on issues like foreign policy.

Some of the most outspoken tea partiers in the GOP Class of 2010— Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan among them — object to the intervention on constitutional grounds. “The biggest issue here, whether you are for it or against it, there’s a process to follow and it wasn’t followed,” House Foreign Affairs member Ann Marie Buerkle, R-N.Y., said in an interview Tuesday. The president “needs congressional approval.”

Buerkle said the constitutional concern outweighed even worries about what the mission could cost.

The view that Obama first should have gone to Congress for a declaration of war has been echoed by a number of other tea party-oriented freshman in recent days, but not the majority. In fact, their response to American military engagement — which is part of a United Nations-endorsed effort to protect Libyan civilians from the regime of Muammar el-Qaddafi — has reflected the conflicted reaction of Congress as a whole.

For the new lawmakers, their comments on Libya represent the first time many have taken a vocal stand on foreign affairs, after largely avoiding the subject on the campaign trail last year and in their early months in office. That’s left many commentators guessing about what form a “tea party foreign policy” might take.

Like their veteran GOP colleagues, the group of freshmen loosely banded together under the populist, fiscally conservative tea party banner appear to be divided between isolationist instincts and concerns about costs, as well as a desire to support the troops and democratic aims in the Arab world.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., who was propelled to an upset of Democratic incumbent Russ Feingold with tea party support in the fall, sought to balance some of those competing concerns.

“Our thoughts and prayers are with the brave men and women within our military that are carrying out the president’s orders in Libya and throughout the world,” Johnson said in an e-mailed statement. While he did not go as far as demanding a war declaration, Johnson did say that “the president owes Congress and the American people a clear explanation of its goals and objectives in this effort. . . . I continue to be disappointed with the lack of leadership shown by this administration.”

Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-N.C., a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, also did not object to American involvement, but said in a statement released March 21 that, “before additional military commitments are made, the president needs to let us know what the mission in Libya is, what goals he has for the mission and what the plan is to achieve those goals.”

The White House took flak from a different angle last week, when Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a rising star in the tea party movement, lambasted the president for being too cautious in his response to Qaddafi’s assault on anti-government protesters.

“The United States quite frankly looks weak in this endeavor. It looks unwilling or maybe even unable to act in this capacity,” Rubio said during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. “Congressional leadership in both parties have strongly called for a no-fly zone and other actions, and nothing has happened. All of this is a toxic brew that is really undermining the perception of the United States and our ability to influence events, not just in this area of the world, but all over the world.”

On Wednesday, Rubio said the United States was right to support the no-fly zone in Libya. In an interview with a Miami radio station, Rubio said that if the international community allowed Qaddafi to repress the uprising in his country “without any international repercussions, he will have created the blueprint for every other country on how to crush these rebellions.”

The problem, Rubio said, is that Obama waited too long to back up his call for Qaddafi to step down with concrete action. “Now we are engaged in a conflict that is going to cost a lot more money and take a lot more time and in which the outcome is a lot less certain,” he said. The administration “should have basically done what they did last Thursday  . . .  three weeks ago.”

Other freshmen House Republicans have backed a more proactive stance against Qaddafi, as well. “It’s never too late to try and go in and do some good,” Texas Rep. Blake Farenthold told the The Monitor of McAllen, Texas, last week after the U.N. Security Council passed its resolution supporting international action. “We should have taken the lead on it, but having the broad global support for our actions is always a good thing, and I’m glad the U.N. saw it our way,” he said.

Not every member identified with the tea party has been critical of the president’s leadership on Libya. According to a local Mississippi television station, Rep. Alan Nunnelee, R-Miss., called on Americans to stand behind Obama and the campaign against Qaddafi. Nunnelee told a WTVA reporter March 21 that the country does not need individual members of Congress setting their own defense policy.

View Original Article