Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Obama's Intervention Justification Speech

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism


As Obama rhetorically searches for ways to justify his interventionist policy with respect to the Libyan civil war he leaves the stage without having done so.

As POLITICO points out, he defined the "Obama Doctrine." Except...  for its glaring inconsistencies, it really isn't a Doctrine at all.

Just a President trying to "Look Presidential."

Excerpts from the article:
Obama admitted that he militarily intervened in Libya even though America was not at any risk. “There will be times…when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are,” he said.

And that is why we are fighting in Libya. Our interest is to have a stable world and our values are to promote democracy and to prevent a “massacre” in Libya and “violence on a horrific scale.”

“We must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms: our opposition to violence directed against one’s own citizens; our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people,” Obama said.

Which you could call the Obama Doctrine, except we hold so few countries to it, including dictatorships that we not only do business with, but whom we also call friends and allies, that it doesn’t deserve that title.





Indeed, a weak argument for justifying his intervention into another country's civil war. A weak argument in justification for the American taxpayer to absorb yet additional costs for another unnecessary and unwarranted military action in a foreign land that presented no threat or danger to our vital security interests.

The rest of the article here.

Via: Memeorandum

Update:

Excepts from a report released by THE DANGER ROOM.

The mantra, from President Obama on down, is that ground forces are totally ruled out for Libya. After all, the United Nations Security Council Resolution authorizing the war explicitly rules out any “occupation” forces. But leave it to the top military officer of NATO, which takes over the war on Wednesday, to add an asterisk to that ban.

During a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island asked Adm. James Stavridis about NATO putting forces into “post-Gadhafi” Libya to make sure the country doesn’t fall apart. Stavridis said he “wouldn’t say NATO’s considering it yet.” But because of NATO’s history of putting peacekeepers in the Balkans — as pictured above — “the possibility of a stabilization regime exists.”

So welcome to a new possible “endgame” for Libya. Western troops patrolling Libya’s cities during a a shaky transition after Moammar Gadhafi’s regime has fallen, however that’s supposed to happen. Thousands of NATO troops patrolled Bosnia and Kosovo’s tense streets for years. And Iraq and Afghanistan taught the U.S. and NATO very dearly that fierce insurgent conflict can follow the end of a brutal regime. In fact, it’s the moments after the regime falls that can be the most dangerous of all — especially if well-intentioned foreign troops become an object of local resentment.

In fact, Stavridis told Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma that he saw “flickers of intelligence” indicating “al-Qaeda [and] Hezbollah” have fighters amongst the Libyan rebels. The Supreme Allied Commander of NATO noted that the leadership of the rebels are “responsible men and women struggling against Col. Gadhafi” and couldn’t say if the terrorist element in the opposition is “significant.” But the U.S. knows precious little about who the Libyan rebels are.

Hup two three four Occupation GI Blues?

The Libyan situation ongoing, developing, and possibly into another quagmire for the west, {left}. Anyone else hear "boots on the ground." Perhaps it's just me. We'll wait and see.

More from THE DANGER ROOM.

2 comments:

  1. The war is pure altruism. Many people have pointed out that its not in US interests, he's not a threat, that if we adopted this kind of warfare on principle we'd be in a thousand countries at once. I wish they'd realize that all of those arguments are equally valid for the morality of altruism itself. Its a morality of suicide and rational self-interest is the answer.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Shane - Of course I am in full agreement with you.

    I am sure the MIC (Military Industrial Complex)will to continue to be driving force for war.

    Follow the money...

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.