The title of this post is to be read with as must sarcasm as you can muster. Sarcasm and disgust because I'm beginning to think that we will never live to see a day when the US (and many western nations for that matter) realizes that it is not, in fact, its responsibility to police the world, sticking its hands into others' civil wars.
Well that's we're doing right? Imposing our will onto a civil war that is taking place on the other side of the world? Where exactly is the imminent threat to the USA? There is none. In this case there isn't even any evidence that can be twisted to make it appear that there is a threat like there was in the case of Iraq. Gaddhafi has no potential to do harm to the United States.
In 2007, candidate Obama said the following:
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
"As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch."
Those are wise words if he actually believed it, because congress was not approached. This military action was unauthorized. Sure there was a UN resolution but as a sovereign nation the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land and that supreme law requires that Congress authorize the use of military force.
So I suppose it is too early to tell whether this new foray into battle will result in a long-term commitment of US and allied military. It's too early to tell whether soldiers will ever hit the ground and start shooting Libyans. But it's not too early to tell that Obama is acting no differently than our past presidents by unwisely and illegally putting US troops in harm's way. And it's not too early to be sure that it is unwise for the United States to stick our nosey hands into a civil war that doesn't involve us at all. A civil war taking place in the Middle East no less, a part of the world where we're already hated for this very thing!
And is anybody even sure who these rebels are that we've decided to help? Are we so in tune with Libyan society and political trends to be sure that a president of their choosing would be any better for the region? For the west? Or are we planning to stick around and try to build yet another Middle Eastern country? Because that's always worked out sooooooo well for us in the past 10 years.
There is already in-fighting and dissension within the ranks of the western alliance that is operating the no-fly zone and dropping the bombs and we're less than a week in. This is not going to end well. Our military is there foolishly. Our military is there unconstitutionally. Hopefully, our president changes course and pulls us out of this. But we've already made a mark, we've already begun to be damaged by this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I for one am not surprised at the forked tongue that our President has. He is a liar. He has proven it time and time again. Why do you think his poll numbers continue to drop.
ReplyDeleteOh, and as a side note, he is stupid and lazy. How else can we rationalize a six day wait to address the tragedy that is Japan. Come on. We should have officially been sending aid the very next day! But He was too busy appearing on ESPN and showing off his March Madness picks to worry about that. Of course, he is going to jump right on this little war of his.
I wish we could understand his ulterior motives in ignoring one tragedy (that is actually affecting our economy) to jump on a smaller one (that doesn't).
Enough with the Obama bashing. We had aid going to Japan right away. I am totally open to rational discussions, but name calling is a bit silly and is completely unproductive.
ReplyDeleteI am torn on the situation with Libya.
I'm with Kyle (as per usual). Obama actually expressed his condolences etc. a few hours after the disaster, and offered any help Japan wanted right then as well. Not that I really care, but ya know...And I could think of a few conservative recent presidents who haven't done any better than Ammon claimed Obama did in regards to certain disasters. Just sayin'.
ReplyDeleteAs for Libya, I don't know yet either what I think. I don't think it's necessarily right to stand by and not help in regards to civil wars. A situation that may not seem to affect your own country/interest at the moment, may affect you quite deeply down the road. I'd argue that Osama bin Laden would not have the power he does with certain people in certain countries if it wasn't for the situation their countries are in. I think with an increasingly interconnected global community, what happens in one country will/can affect all of us. And lastly, I do think we should care about the problems/conflicts of other people/nations, and help if help is appropriate and possible.
Now, with all that said, I don't think that getting involved is always good or right, and often I'm not sure what the best course of action ought to be. I really am not sure about Libya. But, if you feel people should stay out, then may I point out at this moment that Germany, despite it being very unpopular, decided to not get involved. Ya know Troy, you may really like my home country more than you'd ever think possible. We also did such uncool thing as not being willing to aid other struggling European countries unless they make big budget cuts and clear efforts to reign in debt. We Germans really don't like debt...Just sayin'.
Oh I'm well aware of Germany's response to Libya. And it pains me deeply to see other countries acting in more appropriate ways than my own country does at times. Besides, I never said I wouldn't like Germany. I'm sure I would like it very much. I had a German on my dissertation committee and his wife (also German) made pretzels that were better than I thought pretzels could be. So...for that reason alone I'm sure Germany and I would get along just fine.
ReplyDeleteI do want to point out that enforcing a no fly-zone is different than declaring war. I am not saying it is not concerning, but the actions taken in Libya are of a type common among presidents over at least the last 60 years.
ReplyDeleteI'm aware that things haven't escalated into full-scale war yet. Well, maybe it has but we're not yet involved to that level. And precedent isn't sufficient to calm my nerves about it. I don't care what happened 10, 20, 40 years ago; that doesn't make it the right thing to do today.
ReplyDeleteI'm just very concerned about where this is headed even if we don't ever put soldiers on the ground. So we've decided to assist the rebels. There's talking of arming them. Now this is unlikely to happen (I hope) because of a UN arms embargo on the entire country of Libya. But do we even know who these people are? I've heard talk on NPR that there is some limited evidence that Al-Qaeda has a presence in this rebel group. Regardless, look at our past history of helping one group of people fight a war. We armed Bin Laden in Afghanistan against the Russians and that resulted in the Taliban. We armed Saddam against Iran and that also ends badly for us. Our enemy's enemy doesn't necessarily have to be our friend! Especially in the middle east where really nobody is too fond of us anyway. If we assist these rebels to oust Gaddhafi who knows what will become of it? Given our history in such matters it won't turn it good. I understand that it is too early to tell right now what our involvement will be in Libya in 6 months or one year. But I don't think it's a stretch to believe that we'll still be hooked into this mess. This is why our foreign policy should be - no military action unless we are attacked or unless there is an imminent threat of attack. Then we find out who did it and blow them to the stone age with all we've got. War is bad so if we need to attack somebody we should make sure we do it hard and fast and make no doubt that the US will not be messed with. I guess it can't ever be so black-and-white, there will be exceptions I suppose and maybe the line hasn't yet been crossed in Libya. But given history and the tendency of US government to often over-reach, I don't see how this ends well and in a few years I'm afraid we'll look back and wish we hadn't gotten involved here.
And really the administration isn't acting on some humanitarian principle here. There is no core value that we are holding true to. No broad US doctrine. Aren't our core values at odds with half of the continent of Africa. What about the Sudan? Ivory Coast? Africa is peppered with tyrant dictators who abuse their own people. If Libya is about standing up for America's core values, as Obama said the other night, then we should be dropping bombs on half of Africa. And on North Korea. Iran.
Is Gaddhafi bad? Yes. Is it awful that he is attacking his own people? Of course. Should it stop? No brainer. Should the western nations speak out, sanction, and pressure him to step down? Yes. Should we get involved militarily? Not at this point.
Well i find your argument interesting, as it is one that is disturbing me on the left right now. The expressed outrage over not getting involved in Africa does not coincide with being upset by getting involved in Libya. The official statements by the UN and the US are about protecting the people of Libya.
ReplyDeleteIf you want the us to stop genocide and slaughter you have to start somewhere. You can't have your cake and eat it to. Either you begin to get involved in countries that are slaughtering their people or you stop the guilt over what happens somewhere beyond your borders.
Not to mention how supporting the Libyans gives pause to other dictators in the region thinking of turning to violence to quell the recent wave of demonstrations by their people.
The big question is if this represents a new foreign policy doctrine on the part of the US.