Flashback: “Just words”–welcome to our latest “war of choice”. Welcome to our latest “dumb war”.
Like much of what this particular president has said over the past 3 years, both as a candidate and President, we have another example of a promise or statement that turned out to be “just words”. Actions have not matched the rhetoric so many times. And the attack on Libya is no different. From candidate Obama:
That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power…. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors…and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
One assumes we’ll soon be hearing from Barack Obama as he explains to the nation what “imminent and direct threat to the United States or its neighbors” Libya posed. And I further assume he’ll tell us why he believed Saddam could be “contained” regardless of what he did to his citizens, but Gadhafi couldn’t.
And one more point to make – given the Obama paradigm (based on the UN’s “new” principle of the “right to protect” (R2P)), he can no longer call Iraq a “dumb war” or a “rash war”, can he, since one of the reasons in the AUMF was to stop him from perpetrating violence on the citizens of Iraq.
Of course adherence to this new doctrine (It is no longer necessary to base military action on a imminent and direct threat to the US), means we should be gearing up for humanitarian interventions all over the globe … no?
No.
This is an excuse to be selectively applied for whatever benefit politically those in power can see it garners them. Pressed to intervene on humanitarian grounds, our so-called leaders folded, backing away from his own standard for committing our armed forces to war and doing precisely what he had formerly denounced.
But then, that’s really nothing new with this guy.
I assume we can expect the anti-war left to denounce this as another “war of choice”, just as they denounced Iraq – right?
~McQ
I assume we can expect the anti-war left to denounce this as another “war of choice”, just as they denounced Iraq – right?
Well, no…not like Iraq…
But some of the Collective is out denouncing this little adventure. No nasty signs depicting Hitlery or Obama as a chimp (NEVER see any of those because that would be racial). But a call or two for impeachment.
Have not seen Code Pink since Egypt… Wonder if they found boyfriends over there…
I suppose that I could be charitable and say that the high-flown, repeatedly-artculated ideology of The Annointed One (as he was then known) has given way to the reality faced by The Dear Golfer, and his loving liberal heart was just BREAKING to know that civilians were being murdered by a crazed dictator while he was in a position to
take the blamedo something about it. So, realizing that something had to be done andthat the blame for any foul-ups could be spread aroundthat allied nations and the UN were on board, hetransparently and without explanation did a 180 on his previous positiondeftly realigned his values pulled the trigger on a bold plan ofregime changeprotecting civiliansassisting the allies in implementing some sort of no-fly zone.IF I was charitable. Since I’m not, I have to admit being totally flummoxed here. This action flies in the face of years of rhetoric and behavior not only from The Dear Golfer, but the left generally as well as MOST of the Euros. What’s in it for all of them? Why the haste? The UN has almost never acted with this kind of speed. Was Ghaddaffi behind on his bribes? Did Cameron and Sarkozy want more than their predeccessors, and Ghaddaffi wouldn’t pony up? And why did the Red Chinese and Russians suddenly decide to keep their noses out?
Absent some other explanation, this is CLEARLY a war for oil, at least for the Euros. What does The Dear Golfer get out of it? Can we REALLY expect him to start blasting away every time some tinpot regime plays rough with its citizens? Or was toppling Ghaddaffi just an apparently easy way for him to flex his muscles and show that he can actually order the use of military force in something like a timely manner?
What will the Congress say about all of this? My guess: not much. US military intervention in the third world has quite a pedigree, and the Congress isn’t going to get too exercized unless it starts costing too much in terms of blood and treasure. MiniTru, of course, will cover for The Dear Golfer; no “milestones” about US casualties (hopefully, there will be none), no movies about poor boys being kept in the Army against their will or about rabid, murderous GI’s gleefully slaughtering Libyan civilians.
And just who the hell ARE the rebels? What do they want? What have they agreed to to get this level of military assistance? Can we trust them at all?
WAAAAYYYY too many questions here; the whole thing stinks.
Pres**ent Obama failed through his indecision on this (and nearly everything else) to cash in on “the threat” of the use of force. He has taken the threat of the use of force off the table as a first move more than once, so now that threat is gone.
I assume we can expect the anti-war left to denounce this as another “war of choice”, just as they denounced Iraq – right
The true anti-war groups will be portrayed as oddballs and nutjobs this time out much like during the bombing of Serbia.
The rest of the left is going to go on the offense and declare that we are the hypocrits since they really can’t defend it at all.