Posted on 03/21/2011 11:53:59 AM PDT by rightwingintelligentsia
President Barack Obama says he's intervening to prevent atrocities in Libya. But details of behind-the-scenes debates at the White House show he's going to war in part to rehabilitate an idea.
Three weeks ago, I posted an article headlined, “Will Obama Order U.S. Intervention in Libya?” It began: “It seems preposterous to suggest in the wake of Iraq that the U.S. might intervene militarily to help bring down another Arab regime. But the growing danger of a humanitarian catastrophe created by Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, combined with a surprisingly broad confluence of interests, has crisis watchers inside and outside the administration seeing the telltale signs of a conflict that could compel Obama into action.”
My main argument was that if Gaddafi committed large-scale human rights violations against his own people he would provide an opening to those in the administration who wanted to rehabilitate the doctrine of humanitarian intervention eight years after the Iraq war discredited U.S.-led military actions abroad. As it turns out, Gaddafi hasn't done enough to justify humanitarian intervention—despite their rhetoric to the contrary, the administration and human rights organizations admit that reports of potential war crimes remain unconfirmed. Instead, interviews with senior administration officials show that the rehabilitators convinced Obama to go to war not just to prevent atrocities Gaddafi might (or might not) commit but also to bolster America's ability to intervene elsewhere in the future. (More on Time.com:
(Excerpt) Read more at swampland.blogs.time.com ...
I believe this intervention fails several other Just War criteria as well, but this one stands out clearly.
WAG THE DOG.
LLS
Wasting 112+ cruise missiles bolsters our ability?
But details of behind-the-scenes debates at the White House show he's going to war in part to rehabilitate an idea.his sagging image as an indecisive president.
Great, this means.. wait, WTF does it mean?
The administration knows, for example, that al Qaeda, which has active cells in Libya, will try to exploit the power vacuum that will come with a weak or ousted Gaddaffi....Exactly.
They mean the ability of Al Quaida to call in the US military to remove obstacles.
It went something like this:
Hillary: “Look, I’ve been after you for two weeks now for a decision. Our allies are wondering what we intend to do. I haven’t been able to tell them anything. We’ve got to do SOMETHING.”
0bama: “OK, we’ll do something. Maybe I could make a speech about it.”
Hillary: “You’re joking, right? You made a speech last week about something. Our allies want real action here.”
0bama: “What do the polls say?”
Daley: “We don’t have the polls back on this yet, but some of our friends in the press have started making noises that you aren’t doing anything on some important issues.”
0bama: “Well, I can’t let that happen. We might lose some of our base if the media goes south. What’s the harm of dropping some bombs? OK, drop some bombs. Let me know how it turns out. I’ll be in Rio but you know how to reach me on my Blackberry.”
Makes sense. The Nobel Prize Committee awarded Obama the Peace Prize on the justification that he might (or might not) bring peace.
I think that is a matter opinion.
But our attack on Libya sure makes us seem like we have no clue.
That’s what I think. Obama went to war to divert attention from rising food and gas prices, high unemployment, his failed stimulus and economic plans, his attack on America’s energy sector, obamacare, the unsustainable debt and deficits created by his administration, and his ridiculous budget that only compounds all the problems that are bringing the destruction of this country.
When al Qaeda has needed LEGAL HELP, Holder and Obama
were there for THEM.
When al Qaeda needed portals into the USA to bring
on terror at a time of THEIR choice, Obama and BigSis
gave it to them.
When al Qaeda gave an SOS to the West in Egypt and
Libya, who was there to help?
Obama lied. Africans died.
It isn’t right to sit by as observers of genocide, as we did in Ruwanda, while Kadaffi unfairly ratcheted up the slaughter of unarmed civilian protestors by adding the use of air power no less to his armed ground troops and their tanks. Announcing “no mercy” after he had already driven the protestors back was finally a bridge too far for even other Arab countries. A “probable” genocide is a limp term for a sure thing.
Moral authority should matter. There is still no evidence that these civilians are anyone but who they appear to be. Not the Muslim Brotherhood in disguise, not Al Quaida, etc., not radical Muslims, but Muslims.
Sounds about right.
We're fighting two wars. Well, now we're fighting three wars. Sudan and Somalia would make 5 wars.
Are we obligated to fight every country in the world which does bad things?
What is the compelling reason that says Libya is the right war, and some other country is not?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.