March 22, 2011 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - In discussing this matter we must leave aside the craven hypocrisy of a claimed anti-interventionist [who, along with the Dem leadership, actively sought the defeat of the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan...uhhh before he had to...well...take responsibility for the consequences of his actions] turning a poverty stricken, godforsaken, but sovereign Middle Eastern county [with oil] into a shooting gallery. The left owns this territory so thoroughly, no explanation is needed.
Now it is a given that Muammar Gadhafi is a despot [arguably certifiable and in desperate need of a new couturier], a terrorist and an enabler of terrorism. None of this is really news in his neighborhood.
One would have thought given Mr. Obama's heated and irresponsible rhetoric regarding the military conflicts in which America was then and is still currently involved, that barring an extreme act of provocation, attacking Libya would not rank very high on his to-do list.This of course makes a big assumption, that TeamObama actually has the level of focus necessary to think about international relations in such an ordered manner.
So the attack is simply inexplicable and we believe indefensible.
Below ten quick reasons - in no particular order - why this action should never have been seriously contemplated, let alone carried out.
1. Libya poses no national threat to us [or any signatory to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization], many other countries do but we don't bomb them with no provocation, we don't even go out of our way to say harsh things about the worst of them in public. Dozens upon dozens of countries abuse their citizens, it's the rule not the exception throughout the world and by the standards of the machete brutality constantly on display in places like Africa, Gadhafi is a candidate to baby sit your kids. There are fleets of pirates operating off the coast of Somalia who have recently murdered Americans...were their villages leveled with cruise missiles? If so, the news never made the NY Times.
2. There was zero consultation about the matter with Congress before taking this precipitous step, it was essentially presented to them [and of course lapped up by the pitiable bozos masquerading as the GOP leadership] as a fait accompli.
3. Any action "authorized," by the U.N., and signed off by Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice is by definition a bad idea.
4. Libya, unlike Iraq has not demonstrated an immediate military threat to its neighbors or the stability of the surrounding countries.
5. Mr. Obama's real motivation seems to be for reasons external to U.S. national security needs, primarily it seems designed to satisfy demands for Gadhafi's ouster by the Arab League and the United Nations, which in a sane world would be the instant kiss of death.
6. We actually have no idea who these "rebels" are, though the leadership most prominently mentioned were recently part of the Libyan government we are now seeking to replace. Over the last few days it does seem that these "freedom fighters," have picked up the endorsement of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb [formerly, the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat], the North African al-Qaeda franchise. So who knows? Perhaps to the twisted bunch currently operating out of the State Department, the al-Qaeda imprimatur identifies the rebels as authentic Muslims, thus sanctifying their cause.
7. We have taken none of the dizzying array of diplomatic steps even marginally comparable to those engaged in by Bush 1 and 2 to provide some level of certitude that these actions were necessary. Obama's flaccid Libyan coalition doesn't approach the 40 or so countries, which signed on the dotted line in Iraq.
8. Attacking a sovereign nation, absent provocation is an act of war no matter how you slice it. Further complicating this already creaky equation, the administration is internally conflicted about the goal, the length of the engagement and by what metric we will be able to determine that the "job" is done. Exit policy? Are you kidding, let's talk NCAA round ball instead.
9. The action screams "clueless foreign policy," to anyone listening, though it just might be a case of Obama needing a testosterone boost, deciding to try on George W's tough guy boots
10. What if this adventure fails...miserably and amidst the carnage and recrimination, Gadhafi manages to stay in power, then what? This is the equivalent of shaking the hornet's nest from the interior of a locked closet.
The Libyan action is a roll-of -the-die act of madness and Mr. Obama and this country will come to regret it.
Late breaking note: The WH is circulating a new talking point in defense of its Libyan exercise, that it was all the while designed to send a strong message to Iran, which TeamObama's Einsteins have deduced might have been emboldened by all of the recent turmoil in the ME, much of it aided and abetted by this administration. If this is the case, that the current national security team have intended lighting up the Libyan sky like a Fourth of July celebration to serve as a warning to Iran they are more clueless than even the most pessimistic of observers might have thought.
Why use Libya as a proxy? It's like beating up a sickly two year old, hoping that his thuggish linebacker big brother will tremble in fear and run away. Seen in that light, the incursion is provocative in the extreme, more evidence that these folks are truly lost in a geopolitical world which they seem ideologically incapable of grasping.
©2011 PipeLineNews.org LLC. All rights reserved.