Concerning national security Alexander Hamilton said, “Because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies….no constitutional shackles can be wisely imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed. Since Libya poses no national exigency (emergency), Obama cannot espouse that statement for war.
Next as criteria for war come natural rights where Thomas Jefferson writes, “all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Eleanor Roosevelt defines our U.N. commitment to collective security by writing that equal and inalienable rights for the human family encompass rights to life, liberty and security of person. John Kennedy reinforced this commitment saying, “We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” Finally, Ronald Reagan said we cannot escape destiny as the last best hope of afflicted mankind.
However, Barack Obama cannot claim natural rights as criteria for Libyan action, because he considered preventing genocide inconsistent reasoning for maintaining troops in Iraq; pointing out our un-involvement in the Congo and Darfur.
This leaves John Kerry’s international test making the U.S. subservient to worldwide conscience. Under that criteria Libya becomes more equal than the Congo, Sudan, Rwanda, and Uganda. Uninterrupted European access to natural resources seems the paramount reasoning, with humanitarian protection purely random.
Such reasoning required that Congressional debate accompany Obama’s leisurely deliberations.
LINKS:
White House Hopeful Barack Obama Says Preventing Genocide Isn’t Reason to Keep U.S. Troops in Iraq
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290073,00.html
Obama: Don’t stay in Iraq over genocide
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19862711/ns/politics-decision_08/