Posted on 04/01/2011 12:42:05 AM PDT by kevinaw2
It is ever so obvious that Barack Obama's heart is not in Libya, but like every President since Jefferson he has come to recognize the harsh contradictions as the nation's chief executive and campaigning for the office. His predicament is nothing new. Principle meets the real world.
In the midst of the BP oil spill, I wrote that the President seemed "detached". This entire administration can now aptly described as "detached", but more importantly it can now be held accountable for gross contradiction in selectively determining "humanitarian" intervention.
Obama dithered for three weeks on Libya, missing a window of opportunity as rebels converged upon Tripoli. Only after a brutal counter attack and a prospective slaughter of rebels in Benghazi was a "No fly zone" approved. Not by Congress mind you, but the United Nations. Oh and the on again off again endorsement of the Arab League. Too little, too late. The morale of the rebels is shot.
Then there are the contradictory statements. Obama says "Khadafy must go", but the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs says his removal is not the objective. Hillary Clinton says Libya is a vital national interest, but Robert Gates says it's not. Isn't the first rule of governing to make sure you're all on the same page? Certainly, if you're sending young men into a conflict you might want a consistent front. As the Commander in Chief, Obama has a responsibility to tighten up the message so as to avoid confusion. Is there any evidence of a coordinated effort?
Like many I'm forced to ask a question:Why Libya? Why are they the beneficiaries of our newly discovered humanitarianism? We receive two percent of our oil from Libya and it has no strategic value. Contrasted to Bahrain, which has been claimed by Iran which houses the 7th Fleet. Our base in the Persian Gulf could be endangered by regime change in Bahrain, which alters the balance of power. Did we come to the aid of the rebels being spurred by Iran and suppressed by Saudi troops? Nope. I guess being a humanitarian only matters if the object of rebellion provides greater than two percent of our oil or if you base a carrier task force.
Why not Yemen? A brutal regime in a country strategically located and the home of Anwar al Awlaki of Fort Hood inspiration fame. But the government is cracking down. The response? For all intents and purposes it has been to shrug their shoulders and say "Yemen, what's Yemen"?
Why not Syria? The Assad's are one of the most brutal regimes on the planet. Bashir Assad is ruthlessly suppressing rebels and stands defiant. The response? Hillary Clinton calls him a "reformer". Yeah, he's a regular Martin Luther.
Then there's the Ivory Coast? The what you say? Ivory Coast? A brutal war being fought. The response? Well, if you listen carefully for any word from the Obama Administration you can hear a pin drop on a cricket. That is if all the crickets haven't been killed in the fighting. At any moment I expect someone from the White House to say "Ivory Coast?, I really do like their soap".
Of course in our politically correct, post 9/11 world where "Islamophobia" is the new catch word and all Muslims are victims we have the persecution and murder of Christians. Iraqi Christians are fleeing the country. Coptic Christians murdered and beaten in Egypt. Churches and synagogues burned in Pakistan and subjecting religious minorities to "blasphemy laws". Maybe if we coined the term "Christianaphobia" we might get a humanitarian response.
Personally, I think Obama was reaching for a reason and picked "humanitarian" out of a hat. Bad choice. Can you be a humanitarian on a case by case basis? Pick and choose whose humanity means more to your human sensibilities? Compassion by definition is not selective, but in the world of "realpolitik" natural selection is more often the rule.
Humanitarianism as a policy is a fraud, because there are logistical limitations in its application. Let's just be honest, let's just admit that this move in Libya was done for strategic reasons or to placate our allies. The larger issue is that we don't know the outcome and don't know anything about our Libyan rebel allies. Contrary to popular belief, the "enemy of our enemy is not our friend".
If Barack Obama doesn't believe in intervening in foreign conflicts, I'm ok with that, but to intervene on the fallacy of compassion is absurd. The Obama administration is engaging in a policy of "Selective Humanitarianism". Who would've guessed that such a populist as Obama would employ "Darwinian" tactics in the deployment of America's sons and daughters? How long before his "selectivity" comes back to bite us in the ass?
He wants confusion.
No, he IS CONFUSED, CLUELESS & STUPID!
“Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?” - Barack 0bama; The Audacity of Hope
Maybe you’re right, but consider also that Zero told us in his own words in one of his books that he learned at an early age to ‘detach’ from reality (and, my words - to let the adults handle his life for him).
When asked about her husband running for president, Michelle Obama stated simply, but he hasn’t done anything.
Who could have fortold that two years later, those words echo throughout the country?
His aspirations are revolution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.