Where's the Outrage Over Libya

First, I would like to point out that both my domestic and foreign political ideology for government involvement is one of laissez faire. I do not believe we should get involved in foreign conflicts unless it directly affects the national security of American citizens. I do not see the terrorist threats and national security intelligence that President’s view daily – so I am assuming they had valid reasons to get involved in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya (even if the intelligence was faulty). Here are Obama’s and Bush’s statements for our involvement in both Libya and Iraq respectively (8 years to the date).

March 19, 2011:

Obama: "Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world."

March 19, 2003

Bush: "American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger."

All of that said, I have heard the left protest and complain about the Bush Wars for 8 years. They have demonized his administration with harsh criticism. So where is the liberal opposition to our involvement in Libya and where are all those anti-war rallies? Some may argue that there is no comparison between the Iraq and Libyan Wars, but war is war. Besides, there are many similarities between the Iraq and Libyan conflicts.

First, both where / are conflicts for democracy - to overthrow genocidal tyrants. Both Iraq and Libya are primarily Muslim nations with high rates of poverty, famine, and disease. Secondly, both nations main source of income is oil – and stability in these regions leads to lower global energy prices.

The U.S. has been fighting for decades to free oppressed Muslims from tyranny, genocide, and poverty (Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and now Libya). What has the U.S. gotten in return for its efforts? Nothing, but it has sparked more terrorist attacks against Americans and Western civilization. Even Obama has apologized for our involvement in prior wars, but now he is doing the same thing. Muslims continually ask for our assistance (either humanitarian or military involvement to stop poverty and civil war bloodshed) and once we get involved, the tables are turned the first time an innocent civilian is killed by U.S. troops. Global media outlets will go out of their way to report on these tragic stories. These stories work to influence the Muslim world to hate both our military and every American citizen – painting us as the enemy. War is a terrible thing and innocent people are going to die from friendly fire. This should not work to demonize Americans for their involvement to free oppressed Muslims.

Some may argue that our involvement in Libya has been small and it has not put our troops in imminent danger. This is true; but you should never start something that you do not intend to finish. What happens if implementing the “no fly zone” plan fails to help the citizens overthrow Qaddafi and he continues to use ground troops and weaponry to annihilate its citizens? Do we stop and say “oh well, we tried”? Or do we finish the job? If Qaddafi is not removed from power he will certainly plot more terrorist attacks against the U.S. and Western coalition nations who attacked him. What if Qaddafi is replaced by worse leadership (for instance, an anti-American terrorist group) because we did not have a military presence on the ground to make sure a true democracy was formed, like in Iraq? We are now involved in Libya and we need to finish the job. The left remembers when Bush declared “mission accomplished” in Iraq and the war dragged on for years. Well, mission accomplished of the no fly zone in Libya does not mean the conflict is over by any stretch of our imagination. What is Obama’s plan to finish the job?

There are many troubling aspects of the Obama decision to enter into the Libyan conflict. First, he bypassed Congress approval. The Constitution states that only Congress can declare an act of war, the executive branch has no such power. Yes, no one will argue if the President acted under dire circumstances – national security risk – no time for Congress to act. Remember, Bush followed the Constitution and got congressional approval before moving into Iraq. The decision to bypass Congress would have made more sense if Obama acted sooner, when the rebels were close to overthrowing Qaddafi. Instead, Obama waited until the tide turned in favor of Qaddafi. What is even more disturbing is Obama’s plan to hand over control of the Libyan mission to European nations within the next few days. This move makes little sense because it takes our definition of a successful mission out of our hands. It also places our combat troops’ safety in the hands of foreign commanders, is that an ideal situation? Of course not! And if that is not bad enough, Obama has admitted that the goal of the combat mission is not to target and remove Qaddafi from office. Say what? That is correct, so why are we there? If Qaddafi is not removed from office and replaced by a democratic government, our mission will be a failure. If Qaddafi is not removed from office, we can expect retribution from him in the near future.

America invaded Iraq based on faulty intelligence that Husain was building weapons of mass destruction. If that was true, Iraq was certainly an eminent threat against the U.S. and other nations. It was later reported that the ties between Iraq and terrorist organizations was, at best, weak. What is the eminent threat from Libya against U.S. national security? Sure, they have ties to terrorism, but no more than Iraq. Libya reportedly has chemical weapons and even nuclear aspirations, but this has not been evident during this civil conflict. The last major terrorist attack carried out by Libyan terrorists was the downing of Pan Am flight 103 in 1989. Libya is certainly no more a danger to U.S. national security than Iraq. And why use military force in Libya and not in Bahrain and Yemen, which are more strategic? Bahrain is home to a U.S. naval base and Yemen is a haven for terrorists plotting against the U.S. So I will ask the question: where is the liberal outrage? Either you are for using military force to free oppressed people or against it. You cannot have it both ways. Personally, I think Obama is puppet and is using force in Libya only because France and Britain are leading the charge. Obama is a follower, not a leader.