President Barack Obama is scheduled to address the American people on Monday, March 28, 2011 to explain why American military personnel are engaged in dropping bombs and launching missiles on another Middle Eastern nation. It was roughly three weeks ago when U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned that the enforcement of a “no-fly” zone over Libya was essentially “an act of war” against that country; in spite of a unanimous vote to do so by the UN. It seems that the moral imperative for such an intervention was to prevent Colonel Moammar Gadhafi from committing war crimes against his own people. Initially, the U.S.-led offensive was to destroy Gadhafi’s Air Defensive and Offensive capabilities which were used to fight the rebels opposed to his regime and which, if not neutralized could also pose a threat to coalition aircraft used to implement this international sanction. America’s limited offensive role was to protect innocent civilians who would be caught in the firefight between Gadhafi’s forces and the rebels who want regime change and are determined to depose him by any means necessary. The thing is however, even with the dismantling of Gadhafi’s Air Force, he still has armored vehicles and tanks which can still inflict significant damage on the rebels and some former U.S. Military and security experts feel that Gadhafi will ultimately survive this power struggle to still be the leader of Libya.
For President Obama it might be a hard sell to convince everyone that it is in our national interest to have gotten embroiled, although in a somewhat measured way, by using our superior military apparatus to crush another Middle Eastern country and Arab people under the boot heel of American Imperialism. No one really knows what the End Game is and hopefully, the President will go into some detail and lay out specifics as to exactly what was he wants to achieve and were the goals met. President Obama committed American troops without even consulting Congress beforehand, which seems to have been an intentional breach of Executive protocol because the matter was not so pressing or urgent that he had to issue such a command unilaterally without Congressional approval. Also, it is unclear whether political or social unrest in the country of Libya would have destabilized the Middle East to such an extent that it would lead to a cascading ‘Domino’ affect where other nations in the region will start toppling as well. President Obama says that Moammar Gadhafi would unleash a “bloodbath that could destabilize the entire region” and doubtless, creating shockwaves and panic throughout the volatile international commodity and equity markets, sending prices for a barrel of oil soaring through the roof. The phrase “in our national security interest” is just code or political-speak’ and America wouldn’t be in Libya if they didn’t have significant oil production capabilities just like Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait, etc.
On the other hand, if it’s all about American values and supporting Western pro-Democratic movements in other countries, then how can we as a people send our military to intervene in the internal affairs and sovereignty of a particular nation while at the same time ignoring the human rights and desire to live with dignity and freedom of those who live in another country that is not deemed worthy of our direct involvement outside of using economic sanctions?
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
March 27, 2011
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
