President Obama on Libyan Action

It has been 32 days since the rebel uprising in Libya began and 10 days since the United Nations coalition military action began. Last night, 3-28-11, President Obama finally addressed the Nation on America’s involvement on the action. Over the last 9 days there has been a lot of talk about the constitutionality of the action that was taken by the President in this action, did he have the authority to act or not. Hopes were that the speech last night would at least explain to the American public where he believed he obtained the authority to commit our military and our tax dollars to this action. Unfortunately, at least for me, he did not justify his position, at least not in the sense of following the Constitution or in acting in the best interest of the American People.

There were several things that jumped out at me initially that contradicted reports that have been made on the news channels. According to the news, we were led to believe that France was actually the Nation that was leading the way on this military action. At the beginning of the address President Obama actually stated that it was an “international effort WE led”. Unless I am badly mistaken, WE are the United States and not France, so does this mean the news media has it wrong or is our President an egomaniac that just has to take all the credit? The President stated that we would go after al-Qaeda all across the globe; this was an effort to justify interfering in Libya. What wasn’t mentioned in the address is that according to interviews with Libyan rebels just in the last day or so, they are the same people claiming to be members of al-Qaeda that we were fighting in Afghanistan. In fact; one of those interviewed even talked about being captured by American troops in Afghanistan. So which side should we be supporting? Another issue that the President brought up was that the USA is an advocate for human freedom. Has anyone looked at Detroit lately? Has anyone asked just exactly how that advocacy for freedom relates to taxation to cover health care, cap and trade and more military actions? All of these just add up to glorified indentured service. We just dress it up as freedom, humanitarian actions and save the planet rhetoric to con the masses into going to work tomorrow.

The President stated that we (he) had a responsibility to act. Here’s where I’m going to lose many that read this because they will think that I am either heartless or just cruel, I’m neither, I’m being realistic. Watching what is going on in other countries that has no effect on the United States is like watching wildlife, while you may not like watching the Lion eating the defenseless Gazelle, or the baby Giraffe dying because it got stuck in the mud, you can but should not do anything, it’s a cycle, the cycle of life. The Middle East has been warring among themselves for centuries now; we are not going to change that. There have been brutal dictators in that region for as long as written history has been kept. Our President stating that Quadaffi should step down is not only arrogant but it’s also none of his business. Then there are the reports of journalists being attacked and even sexually assaulted over there, there’s a civil war on, people are not exactly thinking in gentlemanly ways. Doesn’t make it right, but then again, what did you expect?

The President alluded to the authority he believes he had to send our military into action. First was the statement “I ordered warships into the Mediterranean” and then the statement “at my direction” referring to actually engaging in military actions. The ordering of ships into the Med was at the beginning of rebel actions in Libya, did the President foresee the need for our involvement or was he hoping for it? When he stated “at my direction” he was referring to actual military engagements; it should be noted that it was not at the direction of, or the authority of Congress. At one point he does state that he consulted Congress or at least some members of Congress. To date the media has been reporting the dissatisfaction of Congress on not being consulted and not declaring war on Libya; to be honest I’m not sure what the truth here is. The President did go on to state “I authorized military action”, not Congress but the President himself. If you read the Constitution you will find that the President does not have that authority, only in a case of direct attack on the USA or imminent attack on the USA does the President have that authority by the War Powers Act of 1973. The media has also reported that France led the way on this but to listen to President Obama tonight the USA led the way and France and Britain followed, once again, what is true?

The President stated that the US would be pulling back and NATO would be taking over actions in Libya. The US military would only play a supporting role which would significantly reduce the risk to our military. Towards the end of the address he even stated that as the “bulk of our military efforts ratchets down”, ratchets down to what? There are a couple of things that need to be looked at here, just what is meant by a supporting role, the President didn’t offer any definition on this point. Another is that the NATO military command is headed by the US military, so are we out of it or are our politicians out of it? One way or the other our military is going to be involved directly or indirectly in a military action that is not authorized by Congress and is going to cost the US taxpayers untold amounts of money, not to mention the possible lose of life for our military personnel; all the while our Politicians will be able to shrug off the responsibility for it. Our tax dollars, sons, daughters, wives and husbands will not be able to shrug it off, we will still carry the burden for an undefined period of time that will last well past the end of the conflict.

The President stated that the US has done what they said they would do, well, that is true if you define the President as the United States. Congress is claiming they have not been consulted and they are the representatives of the States and the People so just who does the President believe the US is? He also mentioned that since Quadaffi had been in power for over 40 years Libya would still be a dangerous place even after Quadaffi was removed from power and that the direction forward from that point was undefined. There are 2 things to think about with this, as Quadaffi has demonstrated in the past, he is brutal and holds a grudge. If he is left alive and on the lose he will enact some sort of revenge on those that had anything to do with his loss of power. The other is that if the direction forward is undefined that is code for prepare to spend tax money on helping to bring democracy to Libya, otherwise called Nation building and colonization. The President also stated that our interests were measured against a need for action. Was this an admission that we had no National interest in Libya? This is a bit curious since earlier in the address he stated that it was not in our National interest to allow this to continue. So which is it? There is also the question about what a need for action means; do we go back to the wildlife example above?

The President made a point of stating that the Arab League supported this action, while it is true that the Arab League pushed for some sort of action to be taken against Quadaffi it should also be noted that they pulled all support as soon as they discovered that civilians died during the coalition’s initial missile and bomb attacks. Was it not clear to the Arab League on what actions would have to be taken or were less surgical attacks used then the Arab League was led to believe?

The President also made a point of stating that he did not want to broaden military intervention and that regime change was not the goal of the coalition. Once again Quadaffi’s history needs to be taken into account, that and the Presidents own words about Libya being dangerous even after Quadaffi is out of office. Either both the coalition and the US commit to finishing the job or we prepare ourselves for the atrocities that will be committed in the short term by al-Qaeda trying to gain control over Libya and in the long term by Quadaffi exacting revenge. We, or should I say the President, has gotten us into a situation that is a damned if we do, damned if we don’t situation.

Towards the end of the address the President came out and stated that he would never hesitate the use military force; this is just a little off from the candidate that wanted to sit down with leaders of terrorist nations without pre-conditions to try and come to diplomatic solutions. He also stated that “for generations we have done the hard work”, this was in reference to sending our military into harms way for other Nations problems, whether they affected us or not. We should not and should never have become the World Police, we have enough problems here and we just cannot afford it, both monetarily and in the cost of human lives, ours. This brings up a point that is being missed here. Is our President acting like a President or is he acting like a dictator? According to dictionary.com the definition of a dictator is; a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession. President Obama fits this definition, as do all Presidents for the last century or more. Is that were we are now? Are we under a dictatorship? Personally I think we are and have been, President Obama just happens to be the one that has brought it to light.

Steve Avery
3/29/11