It’s interesting to see how accountable, representative governments function:

Conservative and Labour members said that the Prime Minister’s statement – made jointly with Barack Obama and Nicolas Sarkozy – showed that the Libyan mission had moved from its original humanitarian purpose and was now about regime change.

——-

David Davis, a former shadow home secretary, said Mr Cameron needed MPs’ approval for the new Libyan mission. “Parliament did not authorise the next phase. To go to the next phase he has to get parliamentary authority,” he said.

If these MPs get their way, the British Parliament will have had two debates on the Libyan war before the United States Congress has managed to do or say anything on the subject. Of course, the first vote in Parliament was overwhelmingly supportive of the war, but that was a vote on military action officially taken to protect the civilian population. There will probably be less support the second time around. Whether or not Parliament continues to support Britain’s involvement in the Libyan war, the crucial thing is that they have already been permitted to debate and vote on the matter, and there is some pressure to demand more debate and another vote before Cameron can proceed. Americans will be lucky if there is so much as a vote on a non-binding resolution in the Senate. It is President Obama’s war, and the rest of us are just paying for it.

Contra Lexington, the triumvirate’s op-ed published today does mark a significant change in official policy. The op-ed clearly links the continuation of the war with Gaddafi’s hold on power:

However, so long as Qaddafi is in power, NATO must maintain its operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds.

This is a confirmation of the “real” Libya policy that David Brooks found so satisfying. As Spencer Ackerman observed:

For the first time, NATO leaders have tethered the war to Gadhafi’s departure, a line that U.S. generals have been loath to cross.

This is a major difference from what the intervening governments argued before the vote on the resolution, and it represents a significant change from what Cameron and Obama told their respective publics. Some British MPs and the French government understand this. Do members of Congress realize that the U.S. and our allies have just escalated our commitment in Libya with an op-ed?

Update: The Canadian government won’t make any additional commitments on increasing its involvement in Libya until after the general election in May when it can be approved by a new Parliament. It’s almost as if they think that Canadian citizens should have some say in what their government does.