After waffling for weeks Obama has finally decided to go to war with Libya….
Well, ok…not go to war. He will pat other countries on the back and provide some transport aircraft maybe to help the cause.
What’s the cause?
Now, here’s why this matters to us. Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Qadhafi would commit atrocities against his people. Many thousands could die. A humanitarian crisis would ensue.
The entire region could be destabilized, endangering many of our allies and partners.
The calls of the Libyan people for help would go unanswered. The democratic values that we stand for would be overrun.
Moreover, the words of the international community would be rendered hollow.
Uh huh….lets go back a few years and recall the reasons given by Bush to go to war with Iraq.
Atrocities against his people….check
Humanitarian crisis….check
Destabilization of the region….check
Calls by the Iraqi people for help….check
Democracy….check
Since Gaddafi gave up his WMD’s after Bush DID go to war with Iraq there is no WMD worries but I swear I’m getting a case of deja vu.
The big difference here is that Bush knew what it would take to actually be victorious. Obama does not.
We will provide the unique capabilities that we can bring to bear to stop the violence against civilians, including enabling our European allies and Arab partners to effectively enforce a no-fly zone. I have no doubt that the men and women of our military are capable of carrying out this mission. Once more, they have the thanks of a grateful nation and the admiration of the world…
It is not an action that we will pursue alone. Indeed, our British and French allies and members of the Arab League have already committed to take a leadership role in the enforcement of this resolution, just as they were instrumental in pursuing it.
This man is a walking, talking, joke. “Enabling our allies”
He’s a joke and he’s making us all a big joke.
Here’s a more thorough analysis then I could ever give by Allah:
I’m amazed he threw in the bit about democratic values given that there’s no guarantee that the Libyan rebels will support democracy once they’ve taken care of Qaddafi. It’s a tribal society; it’ll go on being a tribal society when he’s gone, hopefully with some sort of parliament or congress where the tribes can confer, but whether tribal representatives will be elected is anyone’s guess. If democracy doesn’t happen, The One will be eating these words all the way to election day 2012. The part about destabilization is weird too considering that the big gripe among our “friends” in Riyadh is that it’s the White House that’s destabilizing the region by backing revolutionaries over old guard tyrants like Mubarak. In fact, the Journal had a must-read story just yesterday about how upheaval in Egypt and elsewhere is knocking off some of America’s counterterrorism allies and helping to spring dangerous jihadis from prison. If Qaddafi is ousted and Libya melts down and becomes an Afghanistan on the Mediterranean, that’ll be arguably as dangerous for us, our allies, and partners as Qaddafi is. And Obama will hear about that endlessly until election day, too. And rightly so.
What I wouldn’t give to have an actual leader at the helm right now.
Final thought to Andrew C. McCarthy:
I’m not finding in President Obama’s remarks the part where he seeks approval from Congress for military operations in Libya. Last time I checked the Constitution, the Security Council doesn’t get to authorize that.
Rich is right that this is Kosovo II. But Kosovo I is not a precedent — it is an example of illegitimate use of force. Congress refused to approve it. As I’ve argued before, I think it was proper for the courts to decline to resolve this political tug of war between the political branches, but that did not validate Clinton’s actions. And certainly Kosovo was not thought a precedent when the Bush administration decided to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. Notwithstanding that those situations actually involved vital U.S national security interests, congressional authorization was sought and obtained before our armed forces were dispatched.
In Libya, by contrast, there are no vital U.S. security interests. That argues more for seeking approval from the representatives of the people being asked to foot the bill, not less.
UPDATE
Ok, maybe Andrew doesn’t get the last word….just too much good stuff being written:
If all goes well with the cease-fire, the White House will have done what the White House does best — divert attention from its inability to exercise decisive leadership. During the Gulf oil spill, Obama failed to get ahead of the most slow-moving crisis in history, yet he largely escaped criticism. In dealing with Iran, Tehran has applied rope-a-dope with sanctions and its nuclear program and the White House still doesn’t get it. Obama “forced” an arms-control treaty on Russia that ensured it would be a strategic nuclear power equal to the U.S. and maintain a 10-to-1 advantage over America in tactical nuclear weapons. The president convinced the Europeans to back a missile-defense program that provides less defense, at higher cost, that will likely appear long after Iran develops a missile and bomb that can smoke a European city. If these are the benefits of the Obama Doctrine, it’s not clear how much good news the U.S. can stand before it loses its superpower status.
See author page