Great article from the Patriot Post!
Much Nothing About Ado
We didn't think it possible for a president to present a nationally televised speech on a "kinetic military action" for roughly half an hour and say virtually nothing, but we were wrong. Late to decide on a course of action at all, Barack Obama's address to America on his nine-day-old decision to impose a no-fly zone over Libya was likewise late-to-need. The empty prattle had no substance so the speech would have been equally effective had Mr. Nobel-Peace-Prize-Winner given it on the same day he ordered all those "peaceful" bombs to rain down on Libyan heads.
Timely or not, we still would have liked to hear several statements that weren't included in the president's used-car pitch. Among these was an explanation for why the president didn't ask Congress for approval before giving the go-ahead order to bomb Libya -- a nation posing no imminent danger to the U.S. It also would have been nice to hear exactly what America's vital national interests are in Libya. If the answer -- as some left-pundits have posited -- is, "It's the oil, stupid," then let's hear that from the president.
Instead, Obama declared, "Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world's many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act." He took "time-limited, scope-limited" military action over "values"? Truly progressive.
In 2002, Obama had this to say about interests and values: "Saddam Hussein is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. [He has] developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. But Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors. I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by ... armchair, weekend warriors ... to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne." The weekend warrior now in the White House had and still has it exactly backwards.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated this week that Libya was neither an actual or imminent threat to the U.S. nor is intervention vital to our national interests. We would also like to have heard why Obama waited for UN permission to intervene -- America is supposed to receive its marching orders from the U.S. Constitution and the people through their elected representatives, not from the UN.
Also high up on our list was a discussion of what our military objectives are and how we will know when we have achieved them, let alone a "way forward." Closely related is the question of precisely what is the "reduced role" that America will supposedly assume over the course of the next few weeks, and who will pick up the slack when that role "reduces" -- the so-called "international community" of which Obama spoke? (Good luck with that!)
We suppose we shouldn't care that the role of the rebels was also not mentioned, or that Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, praised the al-Qa'ida element of his rebel forces -- those who took up arms against coalition troops in Iraq -- as "good Muslims [who] are fighting against the invader." Earlier this month, al-Qa'ida made a plea for support for the rebellion, claiming it would lead to "the stage of Islam," which in al-Qa'ida terminology means jihadism. We also note that it was the sharing of intelligence against Libyan jihadis including al-Qa'ida that led the Bush administration to take Moammar Gadhafi and Libya off the list of state sponsors of terrorism. Thus, Gadhafi was correct to claim that the "rebels are al-Qa'ida" -- indeed, a 2007 West Point study found that Libya constituted one of the largest per-capita contributions to the insurgency in Iraq. Team Hope-&-Change knew, or should have known, that Gadhafi's claim was true.
We likewise should mention that by "no fly zone" the White House really means pretty much every military action that doesn't include boots on the ground. Contrary to the Obama's potpourri-scented assertions otherwise, we actually are supporting the rebels and aren't neutral in Libya's civil war. Make that were supporting. The Pentagon announced Thursday its intent to pull U.S. planes out of the air campaign after Saturday.
Finally, with similar unrest and open civil strife in Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Bahrain, Yemen and who-knows-what other Middle East nations on the precipice of the same, shouldn't we be asking whether it's a wise decision to tack an interventionist course? Even as we go to press, the announced timeline that has been modified from "days" to "a few weeks" is now, in Gates's words, likely "several months." This intervention in Libya has become such an ado; so far, we have heard nothing cogent from the president about it.
Go to the Patriot Post for more great articles! Now that's the All Right Idea!