Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Fool Me Once....

I swear I had to get up and go look at my calendar to make sure it was 2011 and not 2003 during President Obama's justification for bombing Lybia speech last night.
President Obama's Monday night speech on Libya was probably as striking for what he didn't say as much as what he did say.

For instance, he didn't offer details for how much longer the U.S. military will be actively involved in the effort.

It's not hard to see why he'd avoid that one. No one knows at this point how long it will take for Moammar Gadhafi to fall, if he indeed does.Weeks, months, more, who knows?

And with the military option being handed off to NATO that means the U.S. essentially handed the operation back to itself since it is the first among equals in the U.S.-European military alliance.

He didn't promise to keep Congress or the American people informed with future updates.

It was like Deja Voodoo all over again.

The Bush Doctrine;
Different pundits would attribute different meanings to "the Bush Doctrine", as it came to describe other elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a potential or perceived threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate; a policy of spreading democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating terrorism; and a willingness to unilaterally pursue U.S. military interests.[3][4][5] Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.[6]

The Obama Doctrine;

We will not stand by and watch innocent people slaughtered. We acted because it was the right thing to do. But we will not go as far as to take out Gadaffi and try to institute regime change. We will not repeat in Libya what we did in Iraq. "As Commander in chief I have no greater responsibility than keeping this country safe...." There will be times, though, when our national security interest is not directly threatened, but we have to act in a way to make sure that the principals of justice and human dignity are upheld by all...

Operation Iraqi Liberation
According to U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's alleged support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."[20] According to Blair, the trigger was Iraq's failure to take a "final opportunity" to disarm itself of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that U.S. and British officials called an immediate and intolerable threat to world peace.[21

Operation Intervention Lybia
President Obama delivered a broad defense Monday of his decision to intervene in Libya and of his leadership style, arguing that the United States has a strategic interest in preventing the killing of civilians around the world and that it must do so in partnership with other nations.

Saddam is an evil dictator/mass graves WMMD, must be stopped.
U.S. officials believe at least 300,000 bodies were buried in mass graves, victims of the former regime’s persecution of political enemies, Kurds and Shiite Muslims, and other groups. Some human rights activists believe the number closer to 1 million.

Muammar Al-Qaddafi, one of the world's top ten worst dictators.
In the 1980s, Qaddafi supported a series of terrorist acts on Western targets that led to UN economic sanctions against Libya. In recent years, he’s attempted a “comeback,” offering compensation to families of victims in two aircraft bombings, including Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988, and turning over some of the alleged perpetrators to Western authorities. At home, it’s another story: The state owns all media, criticism of government policy is forbidden, political trials are secret, and torture is common.

Why did we intervene in Lybia?

For a number of reasons, many of which aren't usually found in sweeping foreign-policy visions. Yes, NATO gets to assist a beleaguered popular uprising and prevent a massacre of people quite publicly clamoring for international assistance. That kind of thing makes liberal hawks get all starry eyed. But what makes Libya different than most of the other places where tyrannical governments do nasty things to their citizens isn't terribly Wilsonsian:

Qaddafi's rule over Libya is, on balance, a net negative for US interests;
The US doesn't care much for most of his friends either;
He's sitting on not insignificant fossil fuel deposits;
He has no real support among the great powers; and
The UK, US, and France really, really, really don't like the guy.

Regime Change then, Regime Change now?

President Obama demanded regime change in Libya more than three weeks ago, but now acts as if that’s not his policy. He will use the assault on Muamar Khadafi’s forces to introduce so-called “humanitarian intervention” as an anchor of the Obama Doctrine. Regime change will remain a basic tool, while the “humanitarian” ruse expands imperial options. Obama may well opt to turn Libya into a kind of protectorate, as Haiti has become. Meanwhile, France interprets the UN mandate in Libya as allowing the Euro-Americans to act as air support for the rebel armed forces, as the French did at Benghazi.

Attack on Lybia is a War of Plunder and Agression
Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois, at Champaign, says the U.S. is involved in an “all-out war” of “plunder and aggression” in Libya. “This is the first major outright power grab by the United States and the major colonial, imperial powers against Africa in the 21st century," says Boyle.

What Dan Nexon said;
I might be wrong, but I don't consider the "Humanitarian-intervention-against-militarily-weak-fossil-fuel-producing-countries-in-strategically-important-regions-that-are-also-located-near-many-large-NATO-military-bases-and-are-run-by-dictators-who-kind-of-piss-us-off-and-have-no-powerful-allies Doctrine" the stuff of Grand Strategy. But if you read between the lines, that's pretty much the gist of what Obama had to say tonight.

What George W. Bush said;

“Fool me once shame on.. shame on you… eh.. um.. fool me once can’t get fooled again.”

No comments: