Though deep in my gut I utterly despise Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi, a tiny part of me is beginning to hope the bum manages to resist all UN efforts to remove him from power. Guess that means that in the silent depths of my soul, I despise the United Nations even more than I do Gaddafi.
On 27 March 2011 Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said in regard to Libya being an immanent threat to the United States, “No, it was not a vital national interest to the United States- but was an interest.” Gates also said that Libya posed no serious threat to the United States prior to the attack- and that regime change “was never part of the military mission.” Why then such hasty military action against Libya without approval of Congress?
Does the equivalent of a 911 call from Libyan citizens to the White House provide probable cause to immediately drop bombs on a sovereign nation? And applying that same rationale to the absurd extreme for justifying violence at home, does merely “an interest” mean that an overdue library book from the Library of Congress provides the FBI with probable cause to bust into somebody’s house?
I am genuinely concerned about the people of Libya, but if humanitarian missions are so important, why not start closer to home by stopping the immense slaughter of Mexican citizens by the drug cartels?
Tim Johnson reported way back on 3 February 2011, “According to a database offered by the government, last year’s 15,273 violent deaths marked the bloodiest year since the president launched a head-on confrontation with the cartels in late 2006. Since then, the death toll stands at 34,612 deaths.”
After listening to Obama explain himself regarding his unilateral attack on Libya, I was not satisfied that his actions were justified without legitimate Congressional approval- Barry’s slick rhetoric notwithstanding.
I did appreciate the President’s promise to use Gaddafi’s frozen assets to benefit the people of Libya. However, expecting the United Nations to properly police the power vacuum created by Muammar’s removal as those funds are dispersed is an enormous stretch of the imagination. One need look no further than the UN’s role in Haiti after that nation’s terrible earthquake.
It also seems the reasons Obama gave for our involvement in Libya’s civil war pertain to Libya only- and not other places. Again, why not Mexico- especially in view of many cartel atrocities against American citizens? And why didn’t we do more to support the Iranian people when they flooded the streets of Tehran- whose tyrannical government continues to be a significant threat to our national interests? And what of genocide in Darfur? And do we bomb Syria next? The Somali pirates?
Don’t get me wrong, folks. I don’t condone the unspeakable horrors rampant throughout the Muslim world, especially despicable crimes against women- but we cannot remake the Muslim world in our own image.
And here’s my main objection to Obama’s speech tonight. After all the lies that have poured forth from Barry’s mouth like effluent from a Chicago sewer, why should we believe anything he says? Barry has long lost all his credibility.
Also, in conjunction with my continual rant against the international banking cartel, I can’t help but wonder how much of our attack on Libya is based on the rising price of crude oil and other corporate interests.
Finally, relinquishing military command to NATO or the UN is not an exit strategy- and based on the obvious contradiction of the President by Gates as to what constitutes our vital national interests, Barry’s unilateral action to attack Libya appears have been overreaching. And just what is kinetic military action?