On the President Speech

By Semperpapa

I listened to President Obama’s speech which had been anticipated to be an explanation for the American people of the reason why our Military is now involved in a third war. I listened and I also read the transcripts and few thoughts have formed in my head.

From the point of view of maintaining a posture of “last Superpower” in a global neighborhood of thugs and corrupted politicians, I support the advancement of freedom and self determination that the action in Libya could, and I emphasize COULD, bring.

The prospect of a country’s people gaining the freedom from a long time dictator is a powerful motivation, but in the case of Gheddafi and his regime, I am not convinced that the aim of Obama is that.

From separate sources of the diplomatic corps, the message has not been clear and consistent. One day the removal of Gheddafi is the goal, the next the possibility of Gheddafi remaining in power is contemplated.

So what is it? From the speech it appears that the goal is to have Gheddafi gone. Will it change today?

Protection of the innocent people of Libya. I can support this too, as for a long time now, oppressed people across the globe have always looked at America as the beacon of freedom that inspires seeking liberty. But is it really the motivation? Since the very first move of then candidate Obama to seek the presidency, the message received from Barak Obama was one of castigation against everything that America has stood for in its history. Apology tours made by the Commander-in-Chief have left a sour taste in the mouths of the American people, including the total rejection of the well known American Exceptionalism.

Promoting freedom across the globe must be the newly found religion for Obama, because he sure faltered in 2009 when the chance to support the freedom seekers in Iran manifested itself.

What remains a point of concern for me is the horse selection for the administration in the race for “democracy”. In the case of Iran in 2009, it was clear who the opposition to the theocracy of the ayatollas and of to Ahmedinejad was. But in the case of Egypt and especially Libya, that clarity is completely absent.

In Egypt, the administration supported the rebellion against the long time ally Mubarek, resulting in his regime being replaced by an Islamic inspired, Muslim Brotherhood infiltrated political entity that remains unclear to this day.

In Libya we went even further now, committing ourselves militarily to supporting a rebellion whose leadership is accepting of al Qaeda, the very same terrorists who have been killing American civilians across the world and American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Lastly, I find it disturbing that Obama’s actions are so hawkish today in Libya, while he was completely subversive when his predecessor made his case for the elimination of Saddam Hussein. In the case against Iraq, W. Bush got a general consensus from Congress about the necessity to check the Iraqi dictator, as all evidences pointed at the danger he represented for the world, and Bush also got the approval from the United Nations before committing to action, assembling a substantial international coalition.

Sure, I understand the game of politics, but that game must end at the point when our Military is brought into the situation. One may argue against our Military involvement until that involvement becomes reality. The moment that American sons and daughters are committed to a fight, all dissent should be kept away from the public discourse, as it aids the enemy and undermines our service people.

I may not be completely clear about the reason why Obama is doing what he is doing in Libya while he was unresponsive toward Iran, but now that our Military is in harm’s way, all I want to see is them being victorious and return home safe. Hopefully at some point the definition of “victorious” will become clearer, but until then I will continue to pray for our men and women in uniform.

Just my thoughts!