Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Is the North Star a warmonger?

I was pleased to see that, via a poll question, 50.2 percent of respondents on the EU Politics Today website think that choas/civil war will be the result in Libya. Well, not exactly pleased, but the strength of my conviction received an amount of satisfaction and justification.
This war is a total farce. I do understand that because Britain and France are involved, we have an obligation to help out our fellow NATO members. If Obama wants to provide a few drones, fine. But for our involvement to stretch any further than that, which it has and which it will continue to do, is preposterous. Remember, "no boots on the ground." US military personnel must be wearing tennis sneakers.
How come we're not in Syria? How come we haven't intervened in the Ivory Coast?
During his war-justification address at the National Defense University in Washington, DC on March 28, Obama said: "I know that at a time of upheaval overseas, when the news is filled with conflict and change, it can be tempting to turn away from the world. And as I've said before, our strength abroad is anchored in our strength here at home. That must always be our North Star, the ability of our people to reach their potential, to make wise choices with our resources—to enlarge the prosperity that serves as a well-spring for our power, and to live the values we hold so dear."
Looks like in addition to his logic-defying Nobel Peace Prize, Obama's attempting to win the Nobel Prize for Literature as well for a flourish of poetry worthy of the Harvard elite.
Looks like the North Star doesn't shine for the Syrians or the civilians of the Ivory Coast.
Not that I want to be in either of those places, but how can our intervention in Libya not be seen as selective?
It could be argued that Libyans have had the courage to do what the Iraqis would not by challenging their autocratic leader. But Saddam Hussein was a much fiercer ruler. And for all the terror that Gaddafi sponsored, we had him contained. The war in Iraq indirectly knocked Gaddafi off his pedestal.
The world is not fair. We should pay Gaddafi back for his past crimes against us, but who are the rebels? Some of them are genuine and they have launched a pursuit for freedom; I can't fault them for that. But they made a choice and they rolled the dice. When you consider that the insurgency in Iraq was backed by eastern Libyans who are the main source of rebellion against Gaddafi, and taking into account the Al-Qaeda infltration into their camp, you are left with a scenario that does not qualify as "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
And why are the Arab nations sitting on the sidelines? After all, they told the West that they had to help to topple Gaddafi who, I'm inclined to think, is not as unpopular in Libya as we are being led to believe.
And there you have it: The nation of Libya, where the people either love Gaddafi and hate the West, or hate Gaddafi and hate the West. And we willingly walked into their civil war. Golly gee. Mission creep: 1, common sense: 0.
It's "kinetic military action," folks. That's all it is. No boots on the ground, we're simply enforcing a no-fly zone. Think of those comforting words and expressions whenever you feel the bile of anxiety rising in your throat. Just overlook the fact that KMA can also stand for "kiss my ass."
The British wanted drones and we provided them. It was the least we could do for an ally who had our backs in Iraq. I just want this President to acknowledge that this is a war, not "kinetic military action," and that selective interests, not the North Star, are guiding our involvement in this "free Libya" operation.

No comments: