Today in a letter to President Obama, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) told the Commander-in-Chief that he must explain to Congress the legal basis for participating in NATO’s air campaign against Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi within the next five days:

Five days from now, our country will reach the 90-day mark from the notification to Congress regarding the commencement of the military operation in Libya, which began on March 18, 2011. [...]

[I]t would appear that in five days, the Administration will be in violation of the War Powers Resolution unless it asks for and receives authorization from Congress or withdraws all U.S. troops and resources from the mission.

According to the War Powers resolution, a president who commits the U.S. military to war must explain his or her legal reasoning within 60 days. The 60-day period could then only be extended to 90 days if the president comes to Congress requesting more time to end the military campaign in question.

Obama has not made any such certification effort. So the White House has technically been in violation of the Act since May 18. Yet on June 1, Boehner said that the President was in compliance with the Act, Politico reported at the time:

The Ohio Republican told reporters on Wednesday that Obama was “technically” in compliance with the War Powers Act, despite criticism from the left and right over U.S. involvement in the Libya campaign.

“There are a lot of questions that remain out there, and frankly I think members on both sides of the aisle are looking for answers about this, and they’re looking for some clarity,” Boehner said. “Legally, they’ve met their requirements [under] the War Powers Act.”

Boehner’s letter today appears more about political grandstanding than any real concern about violating the War Powers Act. Indeed, even some in his own party have warned about playing politics with the war. “I would say to my Republican friends: If this were a Republican president, would you be trying to impose these same conditions?” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) asked.

Last week, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said he requested that the U.S. embassy in Baghdad ask Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and his accompanying GOP congressional delegation to leave Iraq because Rorhabacher had told the Iraqis to repay the U.S. for the war it started there in 2003. “Those people are not welcome in Iraq,” al-Dabbagh said.

Rohrabacher subsequently said he would not apologize for his comments and that the delegation was not kicked out of Iraq. “We were not officially told to leave the country before we left and were never told or warned not to come back,” he said in a statement.

Yet the Hill reports today that Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-TX), who was also a member of the delegation that included Rohrabacher, said the group was indeed booted from Iraq:

Six House lawmakers were asked to leave Iraq last week by that country’s prime minister, according to Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Texas).

Gohmert, who was on the trip with three other Republicans and two Democrats, told The Hill that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki ordered the group out of Iraq after it asked for access to Camp Ashraf, which houses 3,000 Iranian dissidents. [...]

“When we were leaving Irbil, we got word that Maliki had contacted the embassy and had said he wanted our group out of the country,” Gohmert said.

So at this point it’s unclear why the Iraqis kicked the GOP delegation out. The Iraqis say it was because of Rohrabacher’s comments and Gohmert claims they got booted because they wanted to visit Camp Ashraf.

The “dissidents” at this camp are the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), a longtime armed revolutionary group that was previously allied with Saddam Hussein’s regime and currently designated by the U.S. as a foreign terror organization. After being forcibly disarmed by the U.S. in the immediate aftermath of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the MEK publicly renounced violence and sought to promote itself as the sole legitimate opposition to the Islamic Republic of Iran, winning plaudits among those in the U.S. promoting regime change.

Since then, the group has undertaken a campaign to get de-listed in the U.S., including a bevy of paid speeches by former U.S. officials and politicians. The group is also known for having a robust presence in the halls of Capitol Hill, where lawmakers have promoted the MEK as both the victims of human rights abuses by the Iraqis and as an ally against Iran.

Lebanon’s new prime minister, Najib Mikati, announced yesterday that his new government will be dominated by members and allies of Hezbollah. The news has prompted House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) to call for a cut-off of U.S. aid to Lebanon. On Monday, Ros-Lehtinen said:

The U.S. should immediately cut off assistance to the Lebanese government as long as any violent extremist group designated by the US as foreign terrorist organizations participates in it.

While Hezbollah controls most of the country’s south and maintains an armed force, the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) are an under-equipped but nonsectarian institution that has cooperated with the U.N.’s mission in the south. Hezbollah, on the other hand, has received weapons from Iran and serves as a proxy for Iranian and Syrian interests in the region.

It’s unclear at this point how the new Hezbollah-dominated cabinet will govern, but it’s important to note that previous attempts to cut off aid have backfired.

When Congress put a temporary freeze on military aid last August, Iran reportedly stepped in and offered its own military assistance to the LAF. Whether Iran will offer to make up for a cut in U.S. aid if Ros-Lehtinen gets her way remains to be seen. But any steps that weaken the LAF and diminish U.S. influence in Lebanon are bound to strengthen the importance of Hezbollah’s militant wing in Lebanon as well as Iran and Syria’s regional power.

And the State Department isn’t ready to write off the potential gains from military-to-military aid for the Lebanese Armed Forces. A State official in October defended the military assistance as an important tool for strengthening democratic institutions in Lebanon:

US support to Lebanon is part of an international commitment to help strengthen the institutions of the Lebanese state and the ability of the Lebanese government to exercise its sovereignty and authority over all of its territory.

In March, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton argued for a continuation of U.S. aid to the LAF, telling the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

We worry that if the United States does not continue supporting the Lebanese armed forces, its capabilities will rapidly deteriorate, security in the south and along the border with Israel will be at risk.

The State Department was much slower to pass judgement on the new government. A spokesperson told reporters yesterday that it’s important “that the new Lebanese Government abide by the Lebanese constitution, that it renounce violence, including efforts to extract retribution against former government officials, and lives up to all of its international obligations.”

It has become a common theme among right-wing politicians and pundits that civilian commanders should ultimately defer to the military when making decisions about wars, such as whether to draw down the U.S. troop presence in Iraq or Afghanistan. This mentality was expressed by, for example, Rep. Chris Lee (R-NY) when the congressman said during the debate over the escalation in Afghanistan that “the decision [about escalating] needs to come from people best suited — that’s the generals who are giving recommendations to the administration.”

Last night, during the GOP presidential primary debate, former Massachussetts Gov. Mitt Romney expressed this belief. In response to a question from a retired Navy serviceman about when the U.S. will leave Afghanistan, Romney said that when the troops in Afghanistan come home shouldn’t be a matter of “politics,” but rather be determined by the generals on the ground. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) disagreed, saying that if he was president, he’d be the commander-in-chief and it’s the president that makes the decisions:

ROMNEY: I think we’ve learned some important lessons in our experience in Afghanistan. I want those troops to come home based upon not politics, not based upon economics, but instead based upon the conditions on the ground determined by the generals. [...]

KING: Congressman Paul, do you agree with that decision?

PAUL: Not quite. I served five years in the military. I’ve had a little experience. I’ve spent a little time over in the Pakistan/Afghanistan area, as well as Iran. But I wouldn’t wait for my generals. I’m the commander in chief. I make the decisions. I tell the generals what to do. I’d bring them home as quickly as possible. And I would get them out of Iraq as well. And I wouldn’t start a war in Libya. I’d quit bombing Yemen. And I’d quit bombing Pakistan.

Watch it:

There’s certainly nothing wrong with a president seeking the consultation and advice of military commanders, who are responsible for executing actions on the ground. However, the president is the commander-in-chief and is responsible for making the final decisions about global strategy and whether or not to continue engaging in a war.