Obama Commits Military to Libya, Draws Doubt From Analysts
Moran notes also, that despite the new pressures of a U.N. resolution demanding a cease fire and backing it with threats of military action, Qaddafi has continued his bloody assault on the people of Libya.
This fact alone shows that supporting military action against Qaddafi is inexplicably in the interest of the American people, and as well, the international community at large.
However, as the ABC piece continues Moran appears to only be interested in the question of whether the United States can afford to engage in another war, regardless that the U.N. resolution includes many other nations which are, in key areas, taking a leading role in the conflict.
Incidentally, France has boldly taken point in the fray, when Saturday a French fighter jet fired several Tomahawk missiles at pro-Qaddafi forces, taking out tanks, anti-aircraft positions and armored vehicles.
Who say's the French are 'yellow'? One mustn't forget that it was the French who came to the aid of "the rebels" during the American Revolution, following the Declaration of Independence which was well received in France, both by the general population and the educated classes. (Wikipedia.org)
For many in France, the American Revolution was considered the incarnation of the Enlightenment Spirit against tyranny. In December of 1776 Benjamin Franklin traveled to France - where he was welcomed with great enthusiasm - in order to rally support for the American cause. Motivated by the ideals of liberty and republicanism, many Frenchmen sailed to America to volunteer for the war effort, including Pierre Charles L'Enfant and La Fayette whom both joined by the end of that same year. Talk about dedicated!
How fitting that it would be the French taking a significant role in another fledgling fight for independence. And for Great Britain to now be joining them side by side is a clear indication that this effort it both prodigious and prophetic in myriad context.
For anyone who questions the importance of the sea change occurring in Libya and its regional neighbors, take into consideration that just such a conflict created the United States of America. The United States, as well as many other nations, may often experience difficulties of a social, legal and political nature, however, none of them overshadow the very legitimate concepts and principals of freedom upon which these democratically elected republican nations are founded.
Time will always be friend to those who diligently adhere to that which is shown to be self-evident. And all nations will one day exist as separated unions whom respect the rigors of autonomy and accountability.
Moran reports that Qaddafi is still using tanks and heavy artillery to bombard the rebel held town of Misratah, as he raised the question "so, what price is the U.S. prepared to pay in Libya?"
Before continuing, let's question just what price is the U.S. willing to pay for not acting to assist the people of Libya. Certainly, the question is valid since it has been shown that the actions of Qaddafi were just as brutal prior to any military action against him in the past.
Back in the mid 70s, when Qaddafi took power following a military coup, he demanded legitimacy as Libya's leader and even pressured the U.S. and Britain to supply him with military equipment while simultaneously absorbing foreign supplied and controlled air and army bases in the region. Truly, the international community has been far too amenable to the Qaddafi regime. Partly out of a lack of true understanding of the implications of their actions, and also due to the fact that, however misguided and deranged, Qaddafi is actually a rather astute intellectual, and thus was able to negotiate rather successfully in his favor.
This then began a perfunctory and perilous strategy of allowing Qaddafi enough rope to hang himself. Thereby guaranteeing that the line would be stretched time and again as the parameters of a dynamic engagement such as this logically enabled the regime to accelerate recklessly toward each proceeding curve as he attempted to chase his shadow, refusing to turn the corner on progress, careening like a madman scraping the rails of history, threatening all who must share the highways of humanity near him.
This erroneous strategy was unfortunately put into practice, regardless of why or how, and now it must be recognized as faulty, and logically corrected.
There is never a "too late", but there is certainly a "worst-case scenario" in every situation, which eventually evolves should one procrastinate beyond a certain point. Remember, an error only becomes a mistake when one neglects, or refuses, to correct it.
So, in the question of "what is the United States prepared to do to assist in this correction?" one must certainly determine what costs will be incurred if the correction is not made? I will leave the rest of this analogy to another article, and engage Moran's current juxtapose concerning the price of engagement.
The piece continues with a segue to a screen titled "Going After Qaddafi", with President Barack Obama striding to the lectern in the White House press room, the narrator saying "Once again, after a decade of war, a President is sending American troops into harms way".
However, as stated previously (and ad nauseam in the media) the military actions expected against Qaddafi are a widely engaged joint effort that has already seen France at the forefront taking Qaddafi to task, and is allowing Great Britain, and even the Arab Emirates to take a significant leading role, with a U.N. resolution authorizing "all necessary action" - code words for military force.
In the clip - of what is certainly one of President Obama's most eclectic and relevant statements to date, as he recently defined, quite exquisitely, both his executive and legislative roles, while detailing with constitutional soundness his reasoning for taking action on Libya - Obama say's "there is no decision I face as your Commander in Chief that I consider as carefully as the decision to ask our men and women to use military force."
"But Barack Obama has now opened another front in America's wars; Libya." the narrator states. However, once again, this is not "America's war" in Libya, and neither was America the only nation whom voted to sanction, collectively embargo, denounce, defect from, fight, alienate or take military action against Qaddafi. Furthermore, the U.S. could easily be guaranteed a more detached effort of Naval support and assistance, training and intelligence, advisory, and humanitarian roles.
Therefore, the argument that this is another of "America's wars" is a rather dubious and rancorous assessment of the collective effort against Libyan despot Muammar Qaddafi.
It was both imperative and logical for Obama to demand publicly that a cease fire be complied with immediately, and if it is not to be backed by action, it is worthless. Furthermore, the sea-change evolving in the Middle East is following a timeline of human existentialism that neither Barack Obama, nor the majority of the planet has any control over at this point, and thus it will manifest either portentous or pernicious results according to how well humans have become capable of engaging properly this stage of world development.
Normal, everyday Libyans have shown great courage, austerity, compunction and cooperation within the lines of logic and luminosity, and are a clear example of the currents that are swirling beneath the tempestuous surface of a world forgotten in the seas of rising and crashing defiance to the true cosmic consequence that commands the Universe, and which cannot be denied.
To digress for a moment; the powerful forces of the Universe, regardless how inured, seemingly insignificant, or docile, are such that refusal to exist in tandem with them, to a degree that a symbiotic sensibility is at least attainable at critical junctures will only doom humanity to fanaticism, extremism, happenstance and heresy.
The fulcrum within this crisis is humanity's lack of cognizance of the duality of the Universe, and the aberrance that evolved as a result has directed the vast majority on a course that has put succeeding generations in a predisposed stasis that is taught to exist in opposition to the primary parametrical functions of the species, and thus has produced destructive levels of self denial that are destructive to all involved. Therefore, as the sea-change evolves, those who stand against it will make up the vast majority of casualties.
In this day and age, the lack of understanding and/or respect for the forces of the cosmos have manifest human social instabilities that enabled a supreme power mentality that is primarily controlled by a refractive of the deviant structures which were deemed sustainable, and thus a constant manipulation of the forces of nature are seen as corrective measures, when in reality these are merely an ascension upon a time/space coordinate that exudes a - inhumane - cataclysmic "rise and fall" disorder, rather than the logical cyclic "ebb and flow" order.
But back to the current scenario.
So, the U.N. acted to prevent Qaddafi raining down further terror on his own people, voting 10-0 to take military action against him. President Obama, in concert with France, Great Britain, the United Arab Emirates and others, committed the United States to the fight.
ABC News, joining the debate, said "But the President's bold declaration today raises more questions than it answers. Like: what is the goal here?" ABC goes on to say that "the U.N. Security Council resolution say's that this is a humanitarian effort" appearing to question how military action could be a part of a humanitarian effort.
There are actually several instances where military or aggressive action can be a humanitarian effort.
This may appear a rather insoluble and precocious position to take, and maybe it is. However, what it clearly exfoliates is the levels of legitimacy present in this current aggressive effort to protect the oppressed and brutalized people of Libya. In contrast are the engagements of Iraq and Afghanistan where United States military personnel were led into conflicts without a declaration by Congress, and in clear violation of the rules of engagement.
Furthermore, the fact is that in the illegal military action that found American boots on the ground in Iraq, the enemy was never clearly defined, and thus the action was not one which could be guaranteed any perceivable success.
The resolution authorizing military action in Libya is one of humanitarian aid because, as President Obama explained during his statement to the American people, Qaddafi has crossed the line and has, by his own mouth, stated that he will "show no mercy" in Benghazi. To not offer protection to the people of Libya, especially after taking actions that cornered Qaddafi with sanctions and defections, would be not only irresponsible and callous, it would be seen as aiding or abetting, and thereby only exacerbate the crisis as Qaddafi would certainly find it reason enough to escalate the carnage.
"Here's why this matters to us. Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Qaddafi would commit crimes against his people. Many thousands could die." Said Obama, in his statement Friday.
ABC goes on to say "But there's another goal the President has announced previously: regime change, getting rid of Qaddafi" Referring to Obama's March 3 statement that Qaddafi must step down.
Richard Hass, veteran American diplomat, now President of the Counsel on Foreign Relations - a rather dubious non-profit organization with many irons in the fire - say's that he is skeptical of these operations.
"If we're telling [Qaddafi] at the end of the day 'we're not going to live with you', why should he show restraint. We have raised the stakes, yet our means are still limited. I don't understand the connection between our rhetoric and our policies." say's Hass.
First of all, Hass's statement of alleged fact - where he interprets the actions taken to discourage Qaddafi's deranged antics as language to the effect that "we're not going to live with you" - is a puzzling and detached form of diplomatic dereliction that causes one to wonder if Hass has been watching the same unfolding scenario the rest of the nation has these past weeks.
It is difficult to find any official statement or sentiment made in the Libyan crisis that confers the type of language he uses, let alone any type of actual position taken in this debacle.
The Qaddafi regime, in response to the delusional rants and brutal decrees of Qaddafi, has been harangued with defections from every crack and crevice, including his inner circle, military commanders and their brigades, fighter pilots, political envoys, foreign diplomats and governments, international organizations, human rights advocates, entire cities of his own people - including his professed stronghold of Tripoli where all supporters are paid, and the entire city knows it - and so on.
Just how does this mass majority of veritable intervention fall into the disemboweling analysis of Hass? Is this man as deranged as Qaddafi himself?
"Another question: What happens next" say's the narrator of the video. Further explaining "No-fly zone sounds simple, but in reality they're big, complicated, expensive and risky endeavors. That means a huge effort."
Well, again this is a rather perfunctory and tacit statement that obviously intends to paint a specific picture, rather than a justifiable object for analysis. The fact is that a no-fly zone is simply that, an airspace that aircraft are prohibited from entering, typically specific aircraft. And therefore, as one can logically deduce, it depends on the airspace, and the conditions one may encounter either inside or outside the projected airspace.
Former U.S. Marine Corps Commander Stephen Ganyard (Col. Ret) say's that to sustain the military side of a no-fly zone there would be "the front line, the fighters, that would take care of any Libyan aircraft that would be out there. To keep those fighters in the air you need aerial refueling tankers to supply gas so they could stay air-born longer. Behind them you need things like jammers to jam missile sites and Libyan communication." So far, this does not sound all too complicated. Furthermore, there are nine other nations involved in the effort, and whom are taking leading roles.
The narrator goes on to say "But war has always, everywhere, been unpredictable." While this is a definition one could find many reasons and/or opportunities to agree with, the fact is that the unpredictability of any conflict can be reduced to extremely cathartic levels depending on just who is making the decisions, and how organized and informed the command and control aspects of the forces are.
To devolve conflicts to chaos has often been the strategy of choice by many military mechanics - in this author's eyes - and those who currently find themselves in positions of leadership would be wise to assess the bumbling menace so many consider to be an unavoidable parameter of combat, of any kind.
The absolute fact is that few wars are ever engaged by fully prepared militaries, and most of those who find themselves prey to the confusion of the average act of aggression are typically both uninformed of, and unresponsive to, the specific schematics and parameters of the average opponent.
However, when one truly takes the time to analyze the many deplorable engagements of mass aggression that has found humans slaughtering and maiming other humans, the primary strategy created by those in command appears to have been one of chaos, where the lines of combat can be blurred by the boundaries of conscience.
Humans are not predisposed to murder anything, and thus must be manipulated by extremely odious circumstances that are such that history proves them to have all been intentionally fulminated by leaders and lunatics whom exploited and misused the auspicious human trait of ignorance, in both themselves and their constituents.
Be certain that fanaticisms of all kinds will one day erode like sandcastles in the surf. It is the prophetic future for humanity. But I digress.
General Wesley Clark, who commanded NATO during the war in the Balkans in the 1990s, say's "The U.N. Security Council resolution says 'no occupation by foreign military troops.' But that doesn't mean you couldn't put, let's say, air and naval con-fire liaison coordinating teams on the ground, and use those folks to support the rebels if it comes to fighting; or taking out Qaddafi's forces."
Now, this is exactly what I am speaking of. The resolution clearly states the objective, and details the rules of engagement. However, a seasoned general of the United States Military, who has allegedly excelled in various leadership positions, is already openly suggesting complete disregard for the collective command and control attachments of those who have reportedly spent nearly four weeks arduously debating and poring over the intelligence on this issue in their effort to craft the most effective means of handling the explosive crisis in Libya.
With all due respect, the suggestion by General Clark, that the protocol of this operation be disregarded or manipulated, is unacceptable. Furthermore, this particular logistic parameter - agreeing to no foreign troops - was the primary stipulation demanded by the Transitional National Council, which was recognized as Libya's legitimate governing body during the negotiations of this resolution.
Failure to follow the set outline for this operation could certainly prove to be a deciding factor in an escalation of the crisis, or even an increased loss of life due to unexpected or unforeseen results that could erupt into full scale military engagements for the simple fact that current strategies are not such that they will garner the support necessary to accomplish a protracted or skewed trajectory should the operation run off course accordingly. This man is a war-zone whiplash waiting to happen.
As a US Navy veteran, I could not be more disappointed in this man's embarrassing display of military etiquette; or more clearly, the lack of it.
Hass goes on to say "The United States essentially lit a fuse that's easier to light than it is to extinguish, because the limited steps that we we're doing are unlikely to be the end of it. If they fail, the United States and the world are going to be on the hook to do a lot more."
Well, as for this further analysis by Hass, it does not exactly describe the actual scope of the situation, since the steps that were initially taken were the result of logical analyses that were diplomatically subject to an international organization that finds some of its members actually in favor of the Qaddafi regime. Such as China, Russia and other nations whom will view aggression against a brutal dictator as a threat to their own criminal exploitation of people in their countries. Thus, they are reticent to throw their hat into the ring for fear that should they some day desire to murder their own citizens, they can call in a dark favor from some other Qaddafi rat-fink who may have been allowed to weasel his way into the United Nations.
Finally, ABC asks "What is the endgame?" Further expounding "it might be clear we are fighting against; Moammar Qaddafi, a long-time weirdo and thug in the region, a boogie man of the Middle East for decades. But who are we fighting for?"
Hass responds saying "One the lessons of the last few years in Iraq and Afghanistan ought to be that we've gotta be doubly careful about getting involved in these military situations when we are not fully knowledgeable about the situation. Sure we know we don't like Muammar Qaddafi. On the other hand, are we so sure we like the alternative? Are we really sure that we want to help the other part of Libya that may not be in control of all of its territories, where Al Qaeda can put down roots? Are we really sure we want to get involved in a military intervention that we quite honestly don't know what happens next?"
ABC then ends the piece on a sour note by draping the entire Libyan population with a blanket reference that is much less an analysis than it is a misguided and cowardly attack, saying "But President Obama and the U.N. have made a calculation: Better the devil we don't know, than the one we do know."
The problem is that Hass is comparing apples and oranges. His assessment does not take into consideration that the country of Iraq in no way deserved to be invaded. Furthermore, the alleged enemy was never defined, and thus corruption and abuse, murder, exploitation, disloyalty and oppression became part of the "legitimate" rules of engagement.
Dyne Corp, Halliburton, Black Water and even official military brass acted with utter impunity as they interrogated and incarcerated tens of thousands of innocent's, took advantage of no-bid contracts, lived in luxury on the American tax payer's dime, etc. Furthermore, there were over 200,000 innocent civilian casualties, which is a very low estimate. Credible reports put it at nearly 1,000,000.
The scandals, such as Abu Graib, and those by Black Water, were completely unacceptable, and are still viewed with contempt by the Iraqi people. Furthermore, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not welcomed assistance, but instead were forced on those sovereign countries by American hawks who exploited them at nearly ever turn, and the ramifications that have evolved are such that it will take years to undo the damage, or roll back the incompetence, disenfranchisement and political red tape.
Far too many Iraqi's and Afghani's have once again been taught not to trust the United States, and it is an embarrassment that the United States military would put the entire nation at risk, creating a structure which allowed so much of the engagement to run off-course time and time again.
The rules of war, as illogical as that may sound to some, are still such that they are just as powerful and encompassing as the Constitution that the military takes an oath to uphold and defend. To have disregarded their oath in so many ways, was, and still is, a clear violation of their stated goal of protecting the citizens of this, the finest country in the world.
Remarkably, Hass does not simply stop at being egregiously incompetent and obviously uninformed, he goes on to lob a pre-emptive grenade into the camp by insinuating that the nation of Libya could become an Al Qaeda stronghold, claiming that the possibly unknown territorial demographics are reason to assume the alleged terrorist organization could easily cultivate in the fertile soil of a fledgling society.
However, that is not where Al Qaeda finds itself welcome. The fact is that any such entity, Al Qaeda included, has always gravitated toward oppressed, alienated and impoverished regions where they could find a friend in enemies of the United States and its allies. Largely due to the fact that such regions are typically subject to autocratic regimes that feed their populations a daily diet of lies and contrived realities in order to maintain control.
Hass appears to be just one more in a long list of alleged diplomats who know less about diplomacy than they do about brain surgery.
I could analyze this sycophant until his face never again appeared on another television screen, however, I will spare him the microscope this once. There are other pressing engagements that require attention.
As for who the Libyan people are personally, one can only guess since the majority of them were born into oppressive rule, and as well, may be largely unsure just who they are at this point.
One may, at first, desire to distance themselves from this type of demographic. However, these are certain to be a people who have a significant ability to accept life on life's terms, and thus will likely prove to be a rather compassionate and demonstrably tenacious population that is capable of existing in cooperative realms that a majority of the American population would find less than complimentary to their typically apoplectic waltz of apathy, where far too many people in America have been desensitized to the plights of others, and often display sentiments (in many, many callous comments on the internet) where they see the plight of those in Libya as inconsequential, or, through bigoted and animus eyes, see Libyans as less than worthy of assistance.
Truly, I find every reason to expect that the people of Libya will give the United States a run for its money in the areas of charity, ingenuity, tenacity and freedom, should they be given the opportunity to live as every human has the right to be; free and unmolested by those who would exploit their positions of accountability as a means of fomenting power and control over them, and thus find their aspirations unencumbered to the point that they are a viable and blessed contributor to all that this humanity holds near and dear.
Let me be the first to welcome the people of Libya into the fold of a social structure of democratic expression where republicanism ensures everyone a chance to be their best, through the promise of liberty and personal accountability.
Be certain, all ye who now yearn to breath free, the winds of change are such that they will never suffer one to exist in stasis, nor unresponsive to the will of this divine Universe, and thus the fight for independence must be the first and last battle for freedom. The many conflicts that must evolve from there on out, must remain as they are designed, exfoliating and empowering engagements of communication where truth and transparency are paramount to continuing the inexplicably critical respect and sovereignty of the individual, and their contribution to the social structure.
The dissenting voice must always be given a collective ear, and a formal, documented declaration of independence and ratification of inalienable rights from which to refer their conjecture within the forum.
To life, logic and luminosity ... to a WORLD of FREEDOM!
References:
Wikipedia.org; France in the American Revolution; @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War
ABC Report; @ http://abcnews.go.com/International/libya-international-military-coalition-launch-assault-gadhafi-forces/story?id=13174246
[factbat]
2 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (2)
Do not keep anything for a special occasion, because every day that you live is a SPECIAL OCCASION.
-Glashutte Original watches Swiss
Hey man Very inspiring article. basicall,I am a .Net programmer. But earlier I I wanted to be a system programmer. But I could not succeeded in that field. When I read this article It inspire me about system programming. Please provide me good site where I could read such articles. pdpmwn pdpmwn - muska supra shoes.