That Was The Week That Was

Testing for Radiation in Japan

An earthquake struck Japan, sending planet Earth spinning off it's axis, followed by a Tsunami and a nuclear meltdown.  Thousands are dead, missing and injured.  The country is in a tremendous upheaval, and the repercussions of this natural disaster will not only affect Japan, but the entire world, economically and in some cases, physically if the radiation effects are maximized.  



Protest in Bahrain

On the other side of the world, the Middle East was a hot bed of protest and unrest as those who demonstrated against their governments asked for freedom and democracy.  The Middle East has been dominated by tyrants, despots, Royals, and dictators for generations.  As the world becomes smaller due to the Internet and the electronic media, the oppressed clamor for the freedoms that many here in the freest nation on the planet take for granted.  Let it be a lesson to those who support politicians who trample our Constitution and want to suppress our own freedoms, no one has it better than we do. 

During the past week, here in the States, the labor unions were having a field day and issuing death threats to political leaders in Wisconsin, while enticing even more chaos in other states as well.  The leftist media in turn was giving them around the clock press.  Any Tom, Dick, Harry or Michael Moore with a bullhorn was  filmed, photographed or written about.   But then the tragedy in Japan and the genocide in North Africa  bumped them off the the journalistic front burner.

 

With all that has happened this past week, we  watched the stock market plummet, our portfolios shrink, and we held our collective breaths in uncertainty as to what the future holds for us, the American people. Our rate of unemployment is in record high numbers, our national debt unchecked, the housing market down,  budget cuts all around, while the price of food and fuel rises.   Is it a wonder  that we develop new worry lines daily?  These aren't the worst of times yet folks, but they aren't the best of times either. 



Muammar al Qaddafi

Then there was Libya, and those "revolting Arabs."  Muammar al Qaddafi has been a thorn in the side of the United States since Richard Nixon was president.  In 1969 he led a successful coup against the monarchy of Idris I.  Qaddafi established himself as Libya's commander in chief and chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council. Blending Arab nationalism, revolutionary socialism, and Islamic orthodoxy, Qaddafi proceeded to run Libya's government as a stridently anti-Western dictatorship. British and American military bases were closed in 1970; in the same year the property of Libya's Italian and Jewish communities was confiscated.   A fervent Arab nationalist, he sought to unify Libya with other Arab countries, including Egypt and Tunisia, while bitterly opposing Israel. Since Qaddafi took power the Libyan government has supported many international terrorist and guerrilla organizations, including the IRA, the PLO, and other extremist Arab and Islamic groups.  In 1986 the United States sought to quell Libya's alleged terrorist activities by bombing several sites in Libya. Qaddafi survived, but several of his children were hurt or killed. In 1999, following the turning over of the suspects in the Lockerbie bombing, Qaddafi sought improved relations with Western European nations and issued a denunciation of terrorism. 1 

As other Arab countries sought to liberate themselves from their oppressors, the people of Libya attempted a coup of their own.  Unlike in Egypt, where protesters succeeded in ousting President Hosni Mubarak and establishing a temporary government, the Libyan rebels suffered the wrath of Qaddafi and he began to quell their protests by turning his military powers on them, indiscriminately killing all who stood in his path.  With his superior air power (Soviet Era issue) over the rebels, he was emboldened by his success gaining control of most of the cities and towns held by the rebel forces.  There were pleas from the rebels for the UN to establish a no fly zone over Libya, as Qaddafi's genocide continued.  

At the White House,  President Obama continued to plan his South and Central American excursion and did not comment on the situation in Libya.  Some criticized him, others felt he was right not to comment.  We wrung our hands waiting, afraid that one of our deepest fears would come to fruition -- that a situation would arise which would test Barrack Hussein Obama's skills as commander in chief of the United States military!



The Arab League

We didn't have to wait long.  As Qaddafi slaughtered his "subjects" in genocidal frenzy, the powerful (and infamous) Arab League petitioned the UN Security Council for a coalition of allied forces to establish a no fly zone over Libya, in order to protect the Libyan people. On March 18, the UN Security Council authorized the use of “all necessary measures” to protect Libyan civilians. European leaders in France and the U.K. agreed to take the lead with the United States taking a supporting role. 

It was then, that Barack Hussein Obama swung into action and agreed to join the coalition.   On Saturday morning, he, along with his family, boarded Air Force One en route to Brazil.   Later that day, on  Saturday March 19, eight years to the day that President George W. Bush authorized the attack on Iraq,  from a convention center in Brazil, Obama announced to the the U.S. that he had authorized a limited military action, as a humanitarian gesture, to save Libyan civilians.  

Air strike over Libya

"Obama Finally Has A War Of His Own," read the German Spiegel headlines, as others questioned the wisdom of his leaving the continent just as the American military began to rain missiles and bombs on Tripoli.  Earlier in the week we began to see a rift in the Obama foreign policy team.  Secretary Gates had opposed the establishment of a no fly zone, while Secretary Clinton met in Paris with European leaders to coordinate the plans for implementing one.  Former Obama supporters such as Michael Moore and other Liberal Democrats were in an uproar.  Nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan warned  him: "Be Careful Brother.  Who the hell do you think you are?"

We've simplified the events of "the week that was."  We are aware that serious negotiations and discussions and talks took place before decisions were made. But we express the queries and concerns of many of our fellow citizens when we ask some questions of our own.  Why did Mr. Obama wait for the Arab League to act before breaking his silence on the situation in Libya and the massacre that was taking place?  Why leave the country at a time when he was sending American military men and women into a battleground?  Why wait till Congress was in recess before deciding?  Wouldn't it have been better to ask the opinion of both parties?  Is this a new shift in American foreign policy, to follow instead of leading? 

We have noticed that no Arab nation has participated in this "humanitarian" action, but the Arab League wasted no time in criticising the West for the "attacks."  How will Obama reply?  Does he owe them an answer, a bow or two perhaps, and maybe some apologizing?  Has the community organizer bitten off more than he can chew?



American protests

Like the Peregrine Falcon, our wandering president will eventually have to head home.  It will be very interesting indeed to follow the developments as he wings through our southern hemisphere on Air Force One.  Even more interesting will be the reception he receives upon his return.

Obama: From Peace To War

Two Sisters From The Right have opposed any American involvement in another Middle East conflict.  While Harry Reid and other Democrats have come out in support of the president, we stand in SUPPORT OF OUR TROOPS.  There are entirely too many unanswered questions for us to be supportive of spending millions of dollars on another Military action, especially in defense of people who went out in the streets and cheered when our country was attacked by terrorists.  We don't know who these rebels are.  We don't know who leads them or if it is truly a desire for democracy that motivates them. We know nothing about who supplies them with arms.  There are too many unanswered questions. 

Why must we put our Armed Forces in harm's way just because the Arab League asked it of us?  We don't always have to be the ones who lead and leap to save the world.  We seriously doubt that the Arab League would unite in any sort of effort to defend Americans or American interests.  Although we feel for those who are victims of genocide, it is time that others took charge, especially while at home, we are still receiving flag draped coffins from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Journalist Rick Moran has written that unless boots are put on the ground, Qaddafi might still get his way.  It is our belief that if they do put boots on the ground, they had better be Arab boots.  It is a frightening thought that Obama should really decide to take the lead in a war.  The US Military is not Acorn!

We have chosen to feature this article from Spiegel Online International, because it presents an objective view of the facts, adding in some historical comparisons, and an accurate, if somewhat flattering, evaluation of the reluctant commander in chief.
Two Sisters

A Libyan plane crashes after being shot down in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi on March 19: Barack Obama has committed the US to military action against Moammar Gadhafi.

Obama Finally Has His Own War

By Marc Pitzke in New York


Barack Obama has taken a firm stance against Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi in one of the toughest speeches of his presidency. For Obama, threatening air strikes against Libya is a decisive turning point. Now the formerly peace-minded US president finally has a war of his own making.
____________________________________________

US President Barack Obama has struck a new tone. It's one that would have been unthinkable back when he was still a presidential candidate -- the candidate of peace, who rejected his predecessor's wars and wanted to have as little to do with them as possible. But now he is president and commander-in-chief. And now he has the first war of his own making.

US President Barack Obama has struck a new tone. It's one that would have been unthinkable back when he was still a presidential candidate -- the candidate of peace, who rejected his predecessor's wars and wanted to have as little to do with them as possible. But now he is president and commander-in-chief. And now he has the first war of his own making.

On Friday afternoon, Obama entered the East Room of the White House, to make one of the shortest but toughest speeches of his presidency. It was not an open declaration of war -- the word was not mentioned once. But the speech was the culmination of a week in which the pacifist turned into a warrior. At the end of that week, Obama himself committed American troops to a new, distant front for the first time. He did so reluctantly, but it was clear to him that the decision was inevitable.
 
It was one of the most decisive moments in Obama's still young presidency.
 
From Peace To War
 
Following the UN resolution on Thursday night that paved the way for military strikes against Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, Obama had been silent for 20 hours. While the French and British were making preparations for military action, and the Germans pondered the wisdom of their abstention, the White House preferred to wait.

That was partly because no one in Washington really knows what to make of Gadhafi's recent maneuvering. But mainly it is because Obama finds himself trapped in a dilemma: He must explain to his people why he gone from being a staunch opponent of US military action to its advocate. It would be the third current American military operation in a Muslim country, after Afghanistan and Iraq.

Some American commentators have already begun referring to the Korean War. That war, which traumatized generations of Americans, began in a similar fashion in 1950, with a UN resolution and an offer of help from the West.

From peace to war in seven days: It is enough to give people "whiplash," complained Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson on the TV channel MSNBC.

'We Will Not Respond to Words'

The discrepancy could also be seen during Obama's appearance in the East Room. He was addressing two different audiences. On the one hand, he threatened Gadhafi in tougher terms than ever before. On the other, Obama, with an eye to the domestic TV audience, played down the consequences from an American perspective. Supporting the UN was fine, he said, but ruled out unilateral military action or the use of US ground forces.

In terms of the message to Gadhafi, Obama could hardly have expressed himself any more clearly. "These terms are not negotiable," he said, referring to the conditions laid down by UN Resolution 1973, namely a ceasefire, an end to attacks on civilians and halting the advance on Benghazi. Obama has never seemed so determined before.

At the same time, he had his foot firmly on the brake when it came to military action. He announced that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would first meet with America's European allies and Arab partners on Saturday in Paris to discuss how the resolution should be enforced -- meaning that the bombing would not start immediately.

Washington also appeared unimpressed by Gadhafi's announcement of a ceasefire on Friday. "We are going to be not responsive or impressed by words," Clinton said. "We would have to see actions on the ground."

British Prime Minister David Cameron, who discussed the situation with Obama in a telephone conversation, made similar comments. "We will judge (Gadhafi) by his actions, not his words," he told the BBC.

Events on Saturday proved the leaders' skepticism to be well founded. Gadhafi's ground troops attacked the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, and a fighter jet was shot down over the city.

Selling War to the American People

During his speech, Obama summarized how the situation had escalated, partially for the benefit of those in his domestic audience who had previously paid little attention to the situation in Libya. He described how Gadhafi had responded to pro-democracy protests with an "iron fist": "Instead of respecting the rights of his own people, Gadhafi chose the path of brutal suppression." Obama also described the long series of international responses to Gadhafi -- the sanctions, the arms embargo and the repeated warnings.

Then came the most important part of the speech: why the US should get involved. "Now, here is why this matters to us," said Obama, sounding a bit like a math teacher explaining a problem to his students. "The calls of the Libyan people for help would go unanswered. The democratic values that we stand for would be overrun. Moreover, the words of the international community would be rendered hollow." In other words, America is prepared to go to war over such concerns.

Obama may well have used similar words when, earlier in the White House, he had briefed the most important representatives and senators in detail about the possible UN deployment for the first time. The audience included both supporters of a US involvement, such as John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and John McCain, as well as opponents such as Dick Lugar.

Congress does not need to approve the US action, because it is not an official declaration of war. But it can still hold a symbolic vote. By then at the latest, the divisions in Washington will probably start showing.

The first cracks were already appearing on Friday. "None of this makes any sense," the columnist Andrew Sullivan wrote in his blog for The Atlantic. Gaddafi is not a threat to the US, he argued, adding "not even the most righteous neocons" have pushed for military action on such slim grounds. Sullivan also condemned "the imperial presidency that Obama has now taken to a greater height than even Bush."

'Our Cause Is Just'

It is now clear that Obama's attitude changed on Tuesday evening at a crisis meeting at the White House which apparently became extremely heated. Both sides presented their arguments for and against an intervention in the conflict. Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was taking part via telephone, advocated military action. They were opposed by US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and his deputy, Denis McDonough.

In contrast to his stance on the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, Obama ended up joining the side of the interventionists, arguing that Libya was central to the whole wave of change in the Middle East. "This is the greatest opportunity to realign our interests and our values," a senior administration official said at the meeting, according to the magazine Foreign Policy. The official apparently said that the sentence came from Obama himself. The president included the same sentiment in his speech on Friday.

In his address, Obama stipulated one condition, however: no invasion. "Our goal is focused, our cause is just, and our coalition is strong," he said -- sounding exactly like George W. Bush. By an irony of history, his speech came just before the eighth anniversary of the bombing of Iraq on the night of March 19-20, 2003, which began the Iraq war.

"In the case of Libya, they just threw out their playbook," Steve Clemons from the New America Foundation told Foreign Policy. "The fact that Obama pivoted on a dime shows that the White House is flying without a strategy."

It also shows that the old divide between the State Department and the Pentagon has reappeared. Hillary Clinton has won this round, at the expense of Gates, who did not want to impose an additional front on his already overburdened forces -- especially as all the strategic scenarios in Libya are unappealing.

Nevertheless, the troops are ready. The US has brought six warships and a submarine into position in the Mediterranean. "We have been deploying in the region for a few weeks," says one government source. "We are ready to fight." The "full range" is enabled, he says: combat jets and bombers, reconnaissance aircraft and marines.

'He's Going on Vacation'

But there was a sense of disbelief in some quarters in Washington about the fact that Obama set off on a long-planned five-day trip to Brazil, Chile and El Salvador on Friday evening, just hours after his Libya speech and despite the ongoing crisis. Gates was also planning to leave for a three-day trip to Russia on Saturday.

Obama is "going on vacation," mocked host Steve Doocy on the conservative Fox News network. "He's going to Rio. You've got to be kidding. He's taking his family."

The deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, had earlier defended the trip. "It's imperative that the United States not disengage from these regions," he told reporters on Wednesday.

But there's no getting away from the fact that Rio is a long way from Tripoli. Obama is indeed a reluctant commander-in-chief.