This is what happens. This is why you don’t get involved. This is why the people of the United States must, at the very least through Congress, agree to go to war when the President requests such actions.
Now, we have wars which aren’t technically wars; we have overseas contingency operations, peace-keeping missions, police action, and slick names like Operation Desert Storm and Odyssey Dawn and Iraqi freedom to cover up the fact that our government has been arbitrarily bringing perpetual warfare to whichever backwaters’ outpost they choose.
Besides the Bush-led Iraq wars, Bill Clinton unmercifully bombed Yugoslavia in order to change the lead news story to something other than his phallus. Anybody remember Grenada? If not that little dirt spot, what about Costa Rica? Nicaragua? Vietnam? Korea? Anybody remember those war declarations?
And now we have Libya; and we have questions on whether we are going to become involved in the protests and riots and possible civil war in Syria. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, after deflecting any question of Syrian involvement along the lines of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, said, “Each of these situations is unique,” referring of course to the fact that Yemen, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Syria and Bahrain are now on fire thanks in large part to American maneuvering.
What is next for Libya? Nobody really knows. Russia Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov believes it not to be in the United Nations mandate to become involved into a civil war; a charge I support. "We consider that intervention by the coalition in what is essentially an internal civil war is not sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council resolution," he said, referring to the Security Council resolution which was passed with the sole intent of protecting civilians.
He is hardly alone in the Russian state; Prime Minister Vladimir Putin referenced the strongest dagger one can wield when he referred to the actions as a “crusade.” Mr. Putin, the strongest leader of the second-strongest nation on earth (just below China), would not comment on whether his actions against Muslim Chechens were a crusade as well, mainly because the times of asking tough questions to politicians in ‘free’ societies who obviously have some moral authority on what counts as a crusade, a human rights violation, or a ‘good’ war have long since passed.
That being said, I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Putin. The United States should not become involved any further in Libya, nor should they become involved with any Jordanian, Syrian, or even Iranian internal revolutions. Moreover, with this nation currently fighting in three Muslim nations, one has to wonder whether our heavy-handed antics will bring about the crusade Mr. Putin suggests, however with a different target in mind: America.
Not only are the United States, UN, and NATO becoming involved in an African continent civil war, there is even talk about arming the ‘rebels,’ the vaguest of all media and government-sponsored rhetoric depicting the Libyan ‘freedom fighters’ as Middle Eastern versions of John Adams and Luke Skywalker.
Richard Lugar, the President’s one Republican friend, the one he keeps around to insist he isn’t ‘Republican-ist,’ that he has a lot of Republican friends, they just keep opposite schedules, doesn’t believe we should be involved in the Libyan conflict. Being in the minority of his little clique, Lugar’s ideas and beliefs are never paid attention to when the chips are down, especially when his logical opinions go against Presidential yes-men. Obama doesn’t understand the irony of the situation.
Three wars in three Muslim nations with a President who believes his smile and his lineage will allow him to still stay on friendly terms with the radicals who WILL take over in the Middle East. Hope and change?
No comments:
Post a Comment