Mar 20 2011
It seems someone in the White House thought it might be a good political move to start a war against an evil enemy to shore up Obama’s image. An image which is in tatters due to his screwing up the economy and sending the nation spiraling into endless debt. And image being eroded due to his restricting access to our own energy resources so that we now are suffering through another energy crisis. An image on display when his party took historical losses in the midterm elections.
Not to mention the fact his recent lack of a caring and determined response on Japan has exposed his inner coldness and self absorption.
It would seem some genius thought the leader of the Peacenik Party should set up an evil (Muslim) straw-man enemy for the Warrior Obama to knock down.
The strategy was simple. First, you exploit the revolutionary streak currently washing across the Arab world to ignite the sleeping opposition – possibly with help from in-country intelligence assets to affirm the Wests’ willingness to provide military support. You do this by signaling, along with other world leaders, the demand that Qadaffi must step down.
Following criticism over its response to the Libyan crisis last week – and after sidestepping the question as recently as Friday – the Obama administration on Saturday for the first time called unambiguously for Muammar Gaddafi to step down.
On this signal civil protests then turn into rebellion and civil war. As the dictator Qadaffi fails to fall from power, he gathers his forces and nearly wipes out the rebels. Thus an international incident is created. The UN votes to fight Qadaffi and the next thing you know America is in another war.
The final spin is how Qadaffi is actually and enemy in the war on terror. This propaganda piece from the NY Times is riddled with BS and misinformation (or is it mis-recollection of historic events), but it completes the picture painted by the Obama administration and the EU to portray Qadaffi as an immediate threat to America – something he was not a month ago.
Asked if American officials feared whether Colonel Qaddafi could open a new terrorism front, Mr. Brennan said: “Qaddafi has the penchant to do things of a very concerning nature. We have to anticipate and be prepared for things he might try to do to flout the will of the international community.”
Among the threats the United States is focusing on is Libya’s stockpile of deadly mustard gas, he said.
Note the lack of any thing specific, just a bad feeling. When did US military action become triggered by unsubstantiated concerns? At least President Bush had evidence of WMDs in Iraq (as in actual weapons). It gets worse. The Time piece mixes it history to pretend Qadaffi had recently become a terrorist, when in fact he was more ally than anything else, since his turn during the Iraqi invasion:
After renouncing its nascent nuclear weapons program in 2003, and enjoying a brief interlude as Washington’s partner in combating Al Qaeda’s branch in North Africa, Libya has reverted to its status as a pariah government whose intelligence operatives blew up Pan Am Flight 103 above Scotland in 1988.
Emphasis mine. That last bit of awkward propaganda is a serious ‘tell‘ about what is really going on here. To connect the 1988 bombing of a passenger airline to Libya since 2003 is an enormous and transparent stretch. This is coming from the White House and dutifully put out by the suppliant NY Times.
The White House has figured out it has stepped into a political nightmare, where it has rattled its left wing base. So it can only find legitimacy with the Hawks – where there will be no great applause for getting America into another war. This is not a war to defend America, no matter how much Obama’s minions gin up the NY Times cheerleaders.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were due to direct attacks on America and Americans. We paid a heavy price to turn al Qaeda from being the future of Islam to being the enemy of main stream Islam.
Libya is not Afghanistan or Iraq. And it won’t fall in days, and it won’t fall quietly.
If you think GITMO is a rallying cry for Islamo Fascists, what do you think Libya will be? Typically capturing terrorists frustrates the forces of evil, but it is an expected part of their efforts. GITMO has never been that much of a rallying point – Iraq and Afghanistan is what sticks in the craw of Osama Bin Laden. Invading another Muslim country – now that will rally the terrorists to the cause!
Update: Speaking of rallying cries:
There, hundreds of supporters offered themselves up as human shields, cheering to newly minted dance songs about their adoration for their leader. “House by house, alley by alley,” the catchiest song went, quoting a Qaddafi speech. “Disinfect the germs from each house and each room.”
The crowd included many women and children, and some said they had family in Colonel Qaddafi’s forces. They said they had come to protect Colonel Qaddafi’s compound from bombing by volunteering to be shields. “If they want to hit Muammar Qaddafi, they must hit us because we are all Muammar Qaddafi,” said Ghazad Muftah, a 52-year-old widow of a soldier from the Warfalla tribe, who said she was there with her six grown children.
Yeah, this will be a cake walk.
When Muammar el-Qaddafi first struck back against protesters, Obama hoped that tough sanctions and material support to the opposition would be enough to force the dictator from power. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned him that a “no fly zone” would be ineffective and essentially commit the country to war. By Monday night, it was clear to Obama that this policy wasn’t working. Countries like Iran were getting the wrong message. The Libyan military was selectively testing the patience of the world by striking opposition strongholds. The opposition was pinned down in the port city of Benghazi, swelled by tens of thousands of refugees. Qaddafi kept using a phrase that stuck in Obama’s head: “no mercy.” And France, smarting from seeming to abandon Egyptians during their time of trouble, along with the U.K., were champing at the bit to use force.
Gates wanted to game out scenarios, knowing that any effective no-fly zone would necessitate a cascade of other military actions that would look a heck of a lot like an invasion, no matter how carefully it was done.
None of this sounds like a morally sound reason to go to war – looks morr like a lot of bruised egos trying to ‘man up’.
Sarkozy’s France has, without consulting her European allies, already recognized the rebels in apparent control of Benghazi as an alternative government. No one else knows whom they are supporting, and in point of fact, the most promising internal opponents of Gadhafi’s regime are thuggish tribal chiefs and Islamist ideologues we have no reason to prefer to the monster with whom we are overfamiliar.
And as we have already seen, both the strength and ruthlessness of Gadhafi’s Libyan regime, after more than four decades in power, have been underestimated. We cannot foresee, even to the degree we could over Serbia in 1999, the likely results of our “experimental bombing.”
We don’t know what we are doing. We only know that we have moral support for it on paper, from an international organization that is utterly corrupt, wherein members who do not wish us well are pleased to grant us permission to blunder.
That about sums up this incompetent war. These people screwed up a national economy, an international emergency care effort (Japan) and produced historic losses for their party. We expect them to know how to wage war?
Update: This war reeks of hypocrisy