By Douglas V. Gibbs
Tonight, President Obama will be addressing the nation in an attempt to explain why we have taken military action in Libya. Members of both sides of the political spectrum are not happy with the decision to take military action in Libya, feeling that not only was the decision made without Congressional approval (not necessarily necessary, but it would have been nice considering the political climate), but that Libya's civil war does not threaten American interests and is an internal conflict that really needs to be resolved by the Libyan government, and the Libyan people.
I get the morality standpoint of protecting lives that Gadhafi seems to have no remorse about snuffing out, but if that was the case, for the sake of consistency, would we not also need to be involved in a couple dozen other countries too?
We are hearing that the U.S. is getting ready to hand over all controls to NATO, and that we are getting out of the situation so that the world organizations can take care of it. Don't be under the illusion that the United States would then have absolutely no involvement. Libya will be as other conflicts we get involved in - a U.S. led operation to the end. Kosovo was that way, and I expect Libya to remain as such too. It will be our fighter jets, our ordinance, and our technology because without us, NATO is nothing more than a four letter acronym.
There will then be a natural progression when NATO falls away, and decides it is time to hand over operations to the United Nations. Such a progression may be the case in the next few weeks, or months, which will be the U.S. working to hand over operations first, and then the rest of the nations will follow suit, ultimately handing off all operations to the United Nations (with America still involved in one way or another without anybody talking about it). The United Nations will then bring in ground troops once the fighting has subsided in a "humanitarian effort" to keep the peace - usually becoming nothing more than blue-helmeted targets for the insurgents as is often the case in the past. And once that happens, because the U.N. is not exactly an efficient force, expect the blue helmets to remain in that region for the next half a dozen years minimum, acting as a presence, but not a deterrence.
This war in Libya may have created a conflict within the gray matter of the president. Obama must have wrestled with it to a point, because entering this conflict contradicted everything he has said over the last few years. The "anti-war" candidate that received a Nobel Peace Prize for his stance of pulling the U.S. out of Iraq, eventually out of Afghanistan, and closing Guantanamo Bay's prison (none of which came to fruition in the manner he prescribed) was suddenly faced with a situation where the countries and global organizations he holds in high regard were willing to go to war in Libya. Obama, being the "keep everyone happy" kind of guy that he is, decided to make the U.N. and Europe happy by getting involved, but tried to keep his angry base happy by refusing to call Libya a "war." Instead, Obama called the operation a Kinetic Military Activity (uh, in other words, a "war" without using the word), thinking that somehow changing the language would get him off the hook. Instead of making people happy, Obama's dithering, and ambivalence, simply portrayed to the American People that Barry has no idea of what he is doing.
The President, however, knows exactly what he is doing. Let's not be fooled by his antics. Every action he performs is for a reason. The dithering, and then sudden involvement, has a motive behind it. The involvement adds American presence to North Africa in a way that did not exist before.
The American People have been left confused, and I don't believe Obama took into consideration the reaction of the American People. There has never been a time in American History where we dropped bombs on another country with so little explained by the government as to why, and with so little support from the American population. The illusion is that this operation was thrown together at the last minute. I actually hope they are making this up as they go along, because if this is not a classic case of incompetence, then the possibilities become quite sinister. It is turning out that the rebel fighters include characters that fought against the U.S. in Iraq, and that the rebellion has connections to al-Qaeda.
The reality of the situation dictates that years from now Libya, and many of these other countries, may head in an extremist direction. It may very well be that these conflicts that are popping up throughout the Muslim world are leading to these countries becoming Islamic ruled nations. It is simply a matter of odds. Turmoil in a dozen countries in the Middle East and North Africa may lead to revolution in some of those countries. And regardless of the original intent, be it for democracy, or to overthrow a ruthless dictator, the reality is that some, if not many, of these uprisings will become Islamic Revolutions that will in turn change the face of the region to something much more radical. Obama, and friends, know this. I don't believe they are as stupid as they act. So, if they are not making this up as they go along, that tells me the administration wants to be a part of the transformation, to enable it along. Ultimately, through rhetoric and policy decisions, this administration has already shown us that it has something in common with radical Islamic regimes. . . a hate for Israel.
Remember, when asked if there is an imminent threat to the United States, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, "No," over the weekend. The Obama administration realizes this is a matter where the United States is getting involved with foreign entanglements with no American interests at risk prior to our involvement. They understand that the people are not hip about the action, either. That opens up the possibility of insidious motives. The oil we receive from Libya is minuscule. European countries receive more oil from Libya than we do, so I can kind of see their concern over the strife in Libya. But just because Europe, or the United Nations, has decided to get involved in another country's civil war, it does not necessarily mean that we should too. One thing is for sure, before American involvement, Libya had no connections to Iran.
Everybody can't stand Gadhafi. We know how bad of a dirtball he truly is. Of course nobody is going to be disappointed if he is kicked out of power, and no longer holds any political influence after all the bombs are finished dropping. But Iran, al-Qaeda, and other influences, once Gadhafi is gone, will gain more influence than before in Libya. Libya won't be so isolated from the rest of the Islamic madness anymore. And the problem escalates when you draw in the other potential conflicts, be they Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, or even the future of Egypt as we watch that scenario play out.
Whether the President understands the reality of the situation, or not, and whether or not we are being given an adequate explanation, we are being impacted by what is going on. Gas prices are rising (and we must remember that many of the Democrats have indicated in the past that high gas prices are a good thing because they want you to run to unproven "green" technologies), and that is impacting the rest of our economy. High fuel prices increase the cost of transporting goods, and in turn influences all points of the market.
Tonight, Obama's Presidential Address is supposed to address these concerns, and bring about focus and clarity. We'll see if the speech has any substance, or if it will be as his speeches have been in the past - full of empty rhetoric, and self-promotion.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links - U.K. Telegraph
Syria cracks down as unrest spreads - Financial Times
Surprise, Surprise! The Islamist Muslim Brotherhood Runs Egypt - Rush Limbaugh
American Foreign Policy No Longer Oriented Around Our Best Interests - Rush Limbaugh
Bahrain's king thanks Saudi troops for thwarting 'external plot' - Christian Science Monitor
Obama creates indefinite detention system for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay - Washington Post
Flashback: Obama's 2002 anti-war speech - Washington Examiner
No comments:
Post a Comment