At a time when the American people overwhelmingly oppose our continued military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, President Obama has responded by committing the United States to another war. Today, the U.S. attacked Libyan forces with over a hundred cruise missiles hitting the capitol and surrounding areas. With the two wars already draining the United States of billions a day, these cruise missile attacks alone will cost hundreds of millions in both the equipment and commitment of forces.
While we go to war against Libya for its crackdown on democratic reformers and protesters, the United States continues to support its allies like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia (which have unleashed tanks on protesters). What is the principled line determining when we go to war to support protesters or reformers? Will the same line apply to our allies?
Here is what Obama has stated today: ”Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world . . .”
We are now going to war in a country which seems to be experiencing a civil war. It is also a country that greeted the mastermind of the PanAm terrorist attack as a national hero. Finally, we are once again going to war without a declaration of war. While the Framers were quite clear about the need for a declaration, we are once again simply circumventing that inconvenient principle. The same Democrats who insisted that they were misled in using a resolution to start the Iraq War are again standing silent in the face of another President committing this country to war without a declaration. I consider bombing the capitol city of a nation to be an act of war.
I seriously doubt that the majority of Americans are opposed to the other two wars but would want to go fight in Libya.
While we are clearly not committing to a ground conflict, this is a move that is clearly opposed to the public’s desire to end this foreign military entanglements — and not to add new ones. The political disconnect over these wars is both distressing and dangerous for a system that, while a representative democracy, is still based on the notion of responsiveness to the voters.
Source: CNN
Blouise I don’t know if I am for it or against it. I just keep reading things. Did you know that Jefferson did not seek a declaration of war from congress for the first Barbary War?
SwM,
Do you think this will go faster than Reagan’s war in Grenada?
(I’m sorry, I couldn’t resist …. to be truthful Reagan’s war lasted till the middle of December … approx. a month and a half.)
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/un-allies-bombard-libya-to-protect-protesters.html Juan Cole who was against the invasion of Iraq supports this. Hope Gates is right, and it only last a couple of days.
Jeff Cox,
Lighten up war-boy … it was a joke
Blouise,
As I recall, we did that in Rwanda. And Chad. And the Sudan.
Just because we’re the ones with the biggest and best military doesn’t mean we have to attend every war to which we are invited.
We could say no every once in awhile and spend a quiet evening at home.
Rafflaw,
Do you think the families of the Pan Am victims agree with you that Gadhafi is “no threat?”
Drudge is currently highlighting the similarity between President Obama’s justification for today’s military action against Libya with what President Bush had to say about Iraq at the commencement of the war (strangely, both on March 19). Equally striking I think are some similarities – and contradictions – between the President’s decision on Libya and his objections to action in Iraq which he laid out in his famous 2002 speech:
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=22788
Bob,
What exactly is idiotic about it? We’ve done it before, so have the Brits, French, Germans, Italians, Chinese, Russians, Japanese, Rome, Carthage, Persia (Achaemenid, Arsacid and Sassanid), Athens, Sparta, Macedon, Pharonic Egypt, Ptolemaic Egypt, the Pope, the Holy Roman Empire, Huns, Mongols, Tamerlane, Ummayids, Abbasids, Turks – major country in history (and a boatload of minor ones) has done so.
You may not like it, it may seem arrogant and unfair. And from a perfect world standpoint, it is. But this is not a perfect world. We can foreswear it off all we want, but not everyone will, leaving us at a disadvantage.
Bdaman,
Where was Boehner during the run up to our attack? Boehner has no credibility.
What I really like about Obama is that he’s gone 29-3 in his bracket picks over the first two days. You have to spend a lot of time watching college basketball to be that good.
Gates: US expects to hand off Libya lead in ‘days’
By LOLITA C. BALDOR
Associated Press
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_US_LIBYA_GATES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-03-20-18-08-27
CAIRO—The Arab League secretary general, Amr Moussa, deplored the broad scope of the U.S.-European bombing campaign in Libya and said Sunday that he would call a league meeting to reconsider Arab approval of the Western military intervention.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/arab-league-condemns-broad-bombing-campaign-in-libya/2011/03/20/AB1pSg1_story.html?hpid=z3
“The president is the commander-in-chief, but the administration has a responsibility to define for the American people, the Congress, and our troops what the mission in Libya is, better explain what America’s role is in achieving that mission, and make clear how it will be accomplished,” the Ohio Republican said in a statement. “Before any further military commitments are made, the administration must do a better job of communicating to the American people and to Congress about our mission in Libya and how it will be achieved.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51617.html#ixzz1HC5DPY00
Defending his decision to attack rebel cities, Gaddafi told Obama, “Al Qaeda is an armed organisation, passing through Algeria, Mauritania and Mali. What would you do if you found them controlling American cities with the power of weapons? What would you do, so I can follow your example.”
Trying to strike a personal note, Gaddafi prefaced his letter saying, “To our son, his excellency, Mr Baracka Hussein Obama. I have said to you before, that even if Libya and the United States of America enter into a war, god forbid, you will always remain a son. Your picture will not be changed.”
http://www.timesnow.tv/Gaddafi-defends-attack-on-rebels/articleshow/4368205.cms
Jeff: “If he’s replaced by someone worse, then get rid of him, too.”
And that is exactly the type of shit I’m talking about.
That’s not a plan; that’s fucking idiocy.
Bob,Esq.
I agree with you in that we have no real interest in Libya. It is not in our interests to get rid of Gadhafi.
“don’t drag the rest of us into your religious wars”
Pete,
Al Qaida already dragged you into a religious war. You can either recognize it and fight back. Or you can submit to them.
I choose the former.
Bob,
We should be prepared to destroy Gadhafi. I must disagree with you inasmuch as I think getting rid of Gadhafi by itself has the potential to improve our defense picture. Should have done it in the 1980’s.
There is no requirement for “nation-building” here, or, really, anywhere. it’s part of the strategy against Islamism in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it’s not required in Libya. Just get rid of Gadhafi and go. If he’s replaced by someone worse, then get rid of him, too.
If it sounds arrogant, too bad. Protecting this or any country is not a nice business.