With his $1.6 million peace prize in his pocket, President Barack Hussein Obama launched an aggressive onslaught of U.S. cruise warfare missiles into a sovereign nation, Libya, who has an internationally recognized leader in Moammar Qaddafi- a tyrannical leader to be sure, but a leader none-the-less.
Now America’s young and globalist president has taken the helm for America’s third Muslim country war. As such, Obama has further solidified his place, “in a war of his choosing” by involving America in another blurry-eyed Middle-East quagmire.
America’s latest foray into hostilities, with its NATO allies Britain and France is aptly named operation “Odyssey Dawn.” The president said he was reluctant to commit American resources to another war, but added it was the Arab League’s approval for a ‘no-fly zone’ that reassured his administration it was the right thing to do.
Needless to say it only took 24 hours for the military endeavor to draw criticism from the very leaders the president relied on. The Arab League complains that the U.S. tomahawk missile airstrikes are responsible for killing innocent Libyan citizens.
Amr Moussa, spokesperson for the Arab League, claims military operations have gone beyond what the Arab League backed; “What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone. What we want is civilians’ protected not the shelling of more civilians.”
Moussa’s proclamation suggested many of the 22 Arab League members have been taken aback by the U.S.’s aggressive bombardment. Moussa’s statement also implies that some leaders are regretting Western military intervention and fear that Muslims may look like they are accepting of Western countries.
This response is ironic since many of the region’s leaders generally look down on Qaddafi, as a non-traditional dictator, most of Libya’s neighbors want the eccentric leader removed from power.
America’s ‘shock and awe’ military capability has also drawn criticism from Russia (who abstained from the vote on United Nations Resolution 1973 which authorized a no-fly zone in Libya). Russian diplomats are now calling for the immediate halt of all air strikes into the North African country.
With skepticism growing around the need for military involvement, many Americans are left questioning why the president committed the military to another conflict. Why is the U.S. government investing more blood and treasure into another unpopular Middle Eastern war?
Perhaps it has something to do with the ‘King of Tripoli,’ Qaddafi, who poked the eye of American families who lost loved ones in Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland. On December 21, 1988, flight 103 was destroyed in-flight by a bomb that was planted on the aircraft by a Qaddafi intelligence operative. The terrorist-engineered airplane crash killed 270 passengers, including 189 American citizens.
Just over a year ago the only person convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, Abdel baset Al-Megrahi was released from a Scotland prison for compassionate reasons. It was believed the terrorist had only a few months to live and Scottish officials allowed him to return to Libya where he received a hero’s welcome from Qaddafi.
Is this payback?
Most likely not, but President Obama (the man the Nobel Peace Prize committee said would bring peace to the region) has brought more death and warfare.
Sources on the ground in Libya say the U.S-led attacks have left at least 50 civilians dead and are blaming the American military strikes. Where is the Arab League? Why aren’t they using their own troops and military arsenal (that the U.S. gave them) to defend their own neighborhood?
In a pre-empted move the disgruntled Libyan leader has taken to state radio and characterized the raids from the West as “acts of terrorism.” The Obama Administration is dancing on thin ice and would like nothing more than to rid the world of Qaddafi.
As a result of foreign aggression, Qaddafi says he has opened his country’s weapon depots so Libya’s people can defend their nation with automatic weapons, mortars and bombs. “We will not leave our land and we will liberate it,” Qaddafi said. “We promise you a long war,” he said in a radio address.
However, President Obama explained the importance of targeting Libya’s air defenses; “We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy.”
Qaddafi returned the favor and addressed President Obama in a letter in which he tried to explain why he has reacted to the rebel’s uprising. “If you had found them taking over American cities with armed force, tell me what you (Obama) would do?”
While Obama currently enjoys support from both sides of the political aisle regarding the Libya offensive, many security experts question why the United States would even consider a third war in the Middle East.
“This is an absurd situation; there is absolutely nothing of interest to the United States in Libya,” said former head of the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit Michael Scheuer. “If all the Libyans killed each other for the next week, what difference does it makes to life in the United States.”
However Obama explained it was America’s “unique capabilities at the front end of the mission (that would) protect Libyan civilians, and enable the enforcement of a no-fly zone that will be led by international partners. And as I said yesterday, we will not – I repeat – we will not deploy any U.S. troops on the ground.”
To which the CIA front man said; “Air power never wins anything … air power will not resolve the question and we will ultimately be faced with another incursion of U.S. forces on the ground. It is an extraordinarily irresponsible thing for the president to do – he should have said from day one: ‘The U.S. cavalry is not coming.’ If the Europeans want to go, let them go.”
Yet the President’s team waded into the coalition war anyways. “I am deeply aware of the risks of any military action, no matter what limits we place on it. I want the American people to know that the use of force is not our first choice and it’s not a choice that I make lightly. But we cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people that there will be no mercy, and his forces step up their assaults on cities like Benghazi and Misurata, where innocent men and women face brutality and death at the hands of their own government.”
In spite of what Obama wants, Qaddafi removed, there is executive order 12333 signed by President Ronald Reagan and upheld by every administration since that stipulates; “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States government shall engage in or conspire to engage in assassination.”
Obama’s declaration for Libya intervention continues; “we must be clear: Actions have consequences, and the writ of the international community must be enforced. That is the cause of this coalition.”
Despite his Nobel Peace Prize, Obama has opened himself to criticism.
Over the weekend Louis Farrakhan warned the president during a Chicago radio interview. “I warn my brother do you let these wicked demons move you in a direction that will absolutely ruin your future with your people in Africa and throughout the world…Why don’t you organize a group of respected Americans and ask for a meeting with Qaddafi, you can’t order him to step down and get out, who the hell do you think you are?”
Curiously, the Obama Administration stayed on the sidelines during the Egyptians quest to remove an equally brutal dictator President Hosni Mubarak. Even the threat of a takeover by terrorist sympathizers, the Muslim Brotherhood, wasn’t enough to get America militarily involved in the regional uprising that has swept the Middle East.
However, Islam Lutfy, a lawyer and Muslim Brotherhood leader in Egypt said his group is “opposed (to) the military intervention because the real intention of the United States and its European allies was to get into position to benefit from Libya’s oil supplies. The countries aligned against Libya are there not for humanitarian reasons but to further their own interests.”
With that presumption in mind, did the president abandon his Nobel Peace Prize for oil and war? And, unlike the UN resolution establishing a “no fly zone,” an end state was not mentioned in the coalition actions. So, what of the post war Libya and have our actions also committed the U.S. to rebuilding Tripoli?
© Copyright 2011 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.
It’s just been a few weeks since the unjust release of the only terrorist convicted of the Pan Am Lockerbie bombing and a few hours after Muammar el-Qaddafi scathing 90-minute speech to the United Nations calling the U.N. Security Council a ‘terror council’ and now taxpayers are supposed to fork over $400,000.
The payment comes as another insult to American taxpayer when they are losing their homes and jobs.
However, there is a bi-partisan effort to stop payment of the funds in Congress. Rep. Mark Kirk-R, ILL and John Adler-D NJ are among the two dozen lawmakers looking to President Obama’s Administration to do the right thing.
The bi-partisan group believes the State Department will be sending the wrong message to the families of the Lockerbie bombing victims if they send the substantial chuck of money to Qaddafi’s children so-called ‘charity’ organizations.
“Just weeks after the Qaddafi family celebrated the return of a terrorist responsible for the murders of 189 Americans, the U.S. taxpayer should not be asked to reward them with $400,000,” says Kirk in a statement to the press.
However, the Qaddafi’s see things a little differently and claim this money will help the West’s standing inside Libya.
“When I arrived at the airport with Mr. Megrahi (convicted terrorist), there was not a single government official present,” says Qaddafi’s son Saif Al-Islam Qaddafi. “Contrary to reports in the Western press, there was no ‘hero’s welcome’ for Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi when he returned to Libya.”
Apparently his father, Muammar the Libyan dictator, is not part of the government, as he was among the thousands that greeted the convicted terrorist at the Libyan airport.
According to the State Department, they also plan to give Libya $2.5 million to support U.S. government agencies inside Libya.
In a letter, 18 Republicans and 8 Democrats asked President Obama to consider withdrawing the Administration request to give Qaddafi’s children $400,000 for their foundations.
For more stories;www.examiner.com/x-10317-San-Diego-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner