With his $1.6 million peace prize in his pocket, President Barack Hussein Obama launched an aggressive onslaught of U.S. cruise warfare missiles into a sovereign nation, Libya, which has an internationally recognized leader in Moammar Qaddafi — a tyrannical leader to be sure, but a leader none-the-less.
Now America’s young and globalist president has taken the helm for America’s third Muslim country war. As such, Obama has further solidified his place, “in a war of his choosing” by involving America in another blurry-eyed Middle-East quagmire.
America’s latest foray into hostilities, with its NATO allies Britain and France is aptly named operation “Odyssey Dawn.” The president said he was reluctant to commit American resources to another war, but added it was the Arab League’s approval for a ‘no-fly zone’ that reassured his administration it was the right thing to do.
Needless to say it only took 24 hours for the military endeavor to draw criticism from the very leaders the president relied on. The Arab League complains that the U.S. tomahawk missile airstrikes are responsible for killing innocent Libyan citizens.
Amr Moussa, spokesperson for the Arab League, claims military operations have gone beyond what the Arab League backed; “What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone. What we want is civilians’ protected not the shelling of more civilians.”
Moussa’s proclamation suggested many of the 22 Arab League members have been taken aback by the U.S.’s aggressive bombardment. Moussa’s statement also implies that some leaders are regretting Western military intervention and fear that Muslims may look like they are accepting of Western countries.
This response is ironic since many of the region’s leaders generally look down on Qaddafi, as a non-traditional dictator, most of Libya’s neighbors want the eccentric leader removed from power.
America’s ‘shock and awe’ military capability has also drawn criticism from Russia (who abstained from the vote on United Nations Resolution 1973 which authorized a no-fly zone in Libya). Russian diplomats are now calling for the immediate halt of all air strikes into the North African country.
With skepticism growing around the need for military involvement, many Americans are left questioning why the president committed the military to another conflict. Why is the U.S. government investing more blood and treasure into another unpopular Middle Eastern war?
Perhaps it has something to do with the ‘King of Tripoli,’ Qaddafi, who poked the eye of American families who lost loved ones in Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland. On December 21, 1988, flight 103 was destroyed in-flight by a bomb that was planted on the aircraft by a Qaddafi intelligence operative. The terrorist-engineered airplane crash killed 270 passengers, including 189 American citizens.
Just over a year ago the only person convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, Abdel baset Al-Megrahi was released from a Scotland prison for compassionate reasons. It was believed the terrorist had only a few months to live and Scottish officials allowed him to return to Libya where he received a hero’s welcome from Qaddafi.
Is this payback?
Most likely not, but President Obama (the man the Nobel Peace Prize committee said would bring peace to the region) has brought more death and warfare.
Sources on the ground in Libya say the U.S-led attacks have left at least 50 civilians dead and are blaming the American military strikes. Where is the Arab League? Why aren’t they using their own troops and military arsenal (that the U.S. gave them) to defend their own neighborhood?
In a pre-empted move the disgruntled Libyan leader has taken to state radio and characterized the raids from the West as “acts of terrorism.” The Obama Administration is dancing on thin ice and would like nothing more than to rid the world of Qaddafi.
As a result of foreign aggression, Qaddafi says he has opened his country’s weapon depots so Libya’s people can defend their nation with automatic weapons, mortars and bombs. “We will not leave our land and we will liberate it,” Qaddafi said. “We promise you a long war,” he said in a radio address.
Comments 12
A classic case of “damned if you do and damned if you don’t.” Most Republicans were blasting Obama for not being more decisive and providing earlier support to the rebels.
President Ronald REAGAN was right to act against this
brutal Libyan dictator in 1986, and the current American
action, aiding Libya’s freedom-fighters, is also right.
There’s a legitimate debate to be had over whether this and similar actions are appropriate for the United States. But, I agree with the comments. I am sick and tired of those that would have easily supported a Reagan or a Bush — or any Republican for that matter — for taking such action, while being so quick to condemn a Democratic administration for the same action. I’d prefer those who argue with the consistency of their political beliefs, regardless of those beliefs, more so than basing policy — and the reaction to it — solely (and simplistically) on partisanship.
Too often hypocrisy is confused with being “cerebral” or refusing to be an “ideologue”.
George Will has a thoughtful article on this questionable police action in today’s SD U-T. Here’s a link to another paper carrying the column:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/7485040.html
Richard,
I can’t remember: Did George Will write a similar article when we invaded Iraq or Yugoslavia or Iraq (really Kuwait) the time before or Vietnam or Korea or…
Alger, I don’t understand your point, but am curious as to what you are trying to say. Could you expand?
Michael,
I was just curious why Mr Will picked this particular military action to criticize and wanted to know if he had been consistent with his opinion over the years. I was admittedly even more interested in poking Mr. Rider and I was hoping to hear whether he was as critical of some of our other military incursions into sovereign states.
George Will has been a pretty adamant “dove” for years. He recently tore into former VP Cheney after Cheney accused Obama of “dithering”. Will told Cheney that he should have dithered before he invaded Iraq.
Many on the right think Iraq was a mistake as is Libya.
Michael,
Just to be clear: I wasn’t trying to make a partisan point; most of those wars I cited were started by Democrats. Similar to my first post on this topic, I was just doing a consistency check.
Perhaps I am too ready to start swinging and should have dithered before I posted. 🙂
George Will’s most famous attack column was against
an insurgent Presidential candidate who challenged
Gerald Ford for re-nomination in 1976.
Will warned the challenger was a big government
guy who talked tax cuts, but did not really mean it.
Will’s target then was — wait for it — Ronald Reagan.