(Via The Other McCain*) Yikes. When Barack Obama has lost Louis Farrakhan- Well, you know the rest:
"I warn my brother do you let these wicked demons move you in a direction that will absolutely ruin your future with your people in Africa and throughout the world... You can't order [Qaddafi] to step down and get out. Who the hell do you think you are?" – Louis Farrakhan
Now while I completely disagree with Louis Farrakhan's reasoning, I have to admit that I am completely opposed to the military action taken in Libya by Obama. And for three very good reasons:
As of this military action in Libya, this will be the second time the UN has gotten itself into a conflict and declared war on a nation.
And as of June 25th of this year, that first war will be 61-years-old and we (the United States) still have, to this very day, a military presence in South Korea at the DMZ. We are, more or less, the only people there besides the South Koreans. The UN and the rest of the world, with maybe South Korea and Japan the exception, has just lost interest in resolving anything.
So, what are going to do? Divide Libya, put US Soldiers on a new Libyan DMZ, and forget about them for 60+ years? Is this our future?
I can see it now: We'll drive Gaddafi back from Benghazi. Then we send humanitarian efforts into the city. Then Gaddafi starts harrasing said humanitarian efforts. Then we'll have to send troops in the protct those humanitarian efforts. Then we get more and more involved on the ground and-
BAM!! Full-blown ground war in Libya! Did no one see The High Ground? Anybody?
No Leadership Anywhere
Obama has advocated leadership to a leaderless UN. An article on Hot Air said it best:
But we hear no one talking in these terms because the perspective fostered in the modern Western mind is that of the pre-adolescent. The world's happenings are an incoherent mishmash of impressions and inexplicable eruptions, about which the most important things are who is at fault, who might be considered at fault, and how everyone feels about us as it all unfolds. The leaders of the Western world have never seemed so much like a classroom of 4th-graders, making garbled arguments to each other after 15 minutes spent perusing their Weekly Readers.
The White House asserts that it is considering "all the implications and ramifications." But there is no way to think systematically about this situation without the overlay of coherent leadership in some form. Obama hasn't even stated a US national interest or objective for Libya. Do we support the rebels? If we don't know what their character is, there's only one way to find out. The reason the White House's evaluation of implications and ramifications is never-ending is that it won't be complete without some kind of policy commitment from... the White House.
Read the whole thing. It's a seering inditment on the complete lack of leadership and standard message from anyone on this issue, not to menation the White House.
For another stunning example of Obama's formless, anti-Bush foreign policy, all you have to do is turn your eyes toward Afghanistan since he got into office. The whole General Stanley McChrystal incident brings into focus the fact that they have not serious about Afghanistan from day one. Lucky enough for us, General David Petraeus has slowly turn that around. But it was the Obama Administration that made it worse to begin with! You don't accuse the leader of a nation, in which you have troops on the ground, of corruption, even if it is warranted! You don't get points for digging yourself out of your own hole! Not when it comes to war!
As if to underline my entire point, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, says the goal isn't to oust Gaddafi. What? What the hell is the end game then?
Which brings us to my final point...
Why Are We Involved Again?
It's a good question that no one has yet to give me a good answer: Why excatly are we getting involved in Libya?
If we've learned anything in the past 20 years is should be that we cannot let US foreign policy be driven by media coverage. We intervened in Haiti's internal strife in 1994, again to make a certain class of intellectual feel good about "doing something" and withdrew having done nothing but show the world we did nothing. More tragically, we became embroiled in Somalia for the same reason, to "do something" without any observable strategic purpose, and our subsequent pell-mell retreat convinced bin Laden that he could replicate the effect.
Truth be told, what happens in Libya doesn't matter to us so long as it stays confined to Libya. If anyone should be concerned it is the Euros who, no matter which way the situation turns out, will be on the receiving end of a stream of political refugees. If the EU does become involved it is hard to see exactly what value-added US forces will represent given the relative proximity of the EU to Libya.
"Doing Something" does not make a strategic US foreign policy or is a good enough excuse to go to war. If it is define as such, it is a sign of immaturity and is extremely amateurish. I could not agree more with Streiff.
I am by no means a Non-Interventionist, but I'm also not a Neoconservative (as such it is losely defined). Using the military, just because we can and people are in trouble, does not make much sense. There were two very good reasons to go into Afghanistan and Iraq. Dispite the outcome of Iraq, I think it was worth it.
Libya? Not so much. Again, "Doing Something" does not sit well with me as an excuse to go to war. I need more and I'm not getting it.
Now all that said, I believe Obama has honorable intentions when it comes to Libya. I don't buy the far-left "Blood For Oil" argument, like I didn't buy it for Iraq, nor do I believe Obama is a warmonger. I have not meet a person who likes war. From what I also read, this doesn't seem like an illegal action on the part of Obama, but I would have liked for him to get at least a resolution from congress like Bush did at least.
While I'm not ready to join the Anti-War Code Pink movement, I will peacefully speak out against this action taken by Obama. I think it's a completely bad idea for completely the wrong reasons.
*If you are not reading The Other McCain, I only have one question for you: Why the hell not?