To recap, 0bama STILL has yet to address:
1. The military objective.
2. The application of Libya’s internal conflict to our national interest.
3. The post-Gaddafi strategy.
4. Plan B if the initial plan fails (as it appears it will).
5. Who leads the insurgency.
6. What measures are being taken to ensure al-Qaeda does not take hold there.
7. Under what circumstances would American ground troops enter the equation.
8. Why he did NOT address Congress FIRST.
9. Under WHOSE flag will our ground troops (and there will be) fight?
10. What are the ROEs?
And the dumbassed, drooling American public STILL fails to pay attention.
This is Obama’s WAR. Definitely. Obama’s WAR!
The first criteria for going to war involves national security, which Alexander Hamilton covers in the Federalist Papers by saying, “Because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies….no constitutional shackles can be wisely imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed. Since Libya poses no national exigency (emergency), Obama cannot espouse that statement for war.
Next as criteria for war come natural rights where Thomas Jefferson writes, “all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Eleanor Roosevelt defined our commitment to collective security of all men through the U.N. by writing that equal and inalienable rights for the human family encompass rights to life, liberty and security of person. John Kennedy reinforced this commitment saying, “We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” Finally, Ronald Reagan said we cannot escape destiny as the last best hope of afflicted mankind.
However, Barack Obama cannot claim natural rights as criteria for Libyan action, because he considered preventing genocide inconsistent reasoning for maintaining troops in Iraq; pointing out our un-involvement in the Congo and Darfur.
This leaves John Kerry’s international test making the U.S. subservient to worldwide conscience, where assent by the U.N. and the Arab League is essential, but approval by Congress is irrelevant. Under that criteria Libya becomes more equal (read Animal Farm) than the Congo, Sudan, Rwanda, and Uganda. Uninterrupted European access to oil and natural gas seems the paramount reasoning, with humanitarian protection purely random.
Such reasoning required that Congressional debate accompany Obama’s leisurely deliberations with the U.N. Is U.N. recognition of selective humanitarian concerns really in keeping with our heritage? (More than one President should answer that question.) For the Iraq War, Public Law 102-1 confirmed U.N. resolution 678 for use of military force in Kuwait and Iraq, and the Joint Congressional Resolution on Iraq of October 11, 2002 confirmed U.N. resolutions 687 and 1441 requiring Saddam Hussein’s regime be removed for violating its international obligations. Why has not Obama asserted the overarching sovereignty of this country with respect to the wishes of the U.N., and supported the Constitution by seeking Congressional approval? There should be no perplexity now about censure for Obama’s failing to involve Congress.
White House Hopeful Barack Obama Says Preventing Genocide Isn’t Reason to Keep U.S. Troops in Iraq
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290073,00.html
Obama: Don’t stay in Iraq over genocide
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19862711/ns/politics-decision_08/