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.

Is It Better Late Than Never?

There are so many items in the news that we can discuss these days that is is difficult to find a topic to write about without coming across an article or a blog where someone has written about it already and either said exactly what we wanted to say, or said it better!  Japan had dominated the news for several days, so we've decided to do a little piece on Libya.

We can't write about Libya without recalling a couple of friends of ours who lived there in the 1960s, and knew the country well.  In fact, their eldest child was born in Tripoli.  Our friend had once been forced to leave the country because there had been some sort of uprising which always led her to joke, "You know those Arabs, they're always revolting!"  The double entendre would always make us laugh.  Little did we know what a thorn in the side of America those Arab countries would eventually become. 

If for no other reason than to stop our dependency on Arabs for oil, we'd love for our nation to become completely independent in providing our own energy resources.  We're still not quite convinced that anyone really knows where these revolts will lead.  Most journalists whom we read and hear, say that it is a "pro democracy movement."  We are sure that the Cuban university students who began to revolt against the Batista Dictatorship  in the 1950s believed that democracy was coming.  Instead they found themselves fleeing an even worse dictator -- one who brought communism to the Western Hemisphere, a nuclear threat to America, and exported socialist and communist ideology to other countries in Central and South America. 

We have no assurances that the rebels in Libya are really seeking to bring democracy to that country.  We are sure that their intent from the very beginning was to oust Muammar Qaddafi, but if they succeed what sort of government would they install in his place?  After Afghanistan and Iraq, we don't believe that America should be involved in yet another ground war in the Middle East.  Although our soldiers have succeeded in ousting the Taliban and restoring some sense of freedom to the Afghan people, the Taliban has not been completely vanquished.  After the sneak attack on 9/11/01, the success of  "Operation Shock and Awe" gave us a good feeling of payback.  

It was the same for putting Saddam Hussein on the run, finding him, trying him, and then  having him put to death, ending his reign of terror over the Iraqi people.  Even though liberals like to parrot, "But they never found any WMD!" we believe they did.  Hussein himself was a major WMD.  Not only did he brutally kill his own people, but he also  harbored terrorists who would then go on to commit devastating crimes against America and other nations in the free world.  September 11, 2001, changed all of our lives forever.  Whether we admit it or not, our way of life has not been the same since then.

Tonight the United Nations  Security Council approved a "No Fly" zone over Libya.  However, President Obama is still going on vacation to Central and South America on Saturday.  The Libyan rebels have begged for support against Qaddafi's Air Force for days on end.  Our government has been non committal.  For once France took the lead where the US had always done so before. The world simply could not stand by and watch as Muammar Qaddafi slaughtered the rebel forces  with his air superiority.  A "No Fly" zone would, many thought, level the playing field.  But is it too little to late? 

In a commentary in The Weekly Standard Blog, editor William Kristol writes a very compelling argument for issuing the order for a "No Fly" zone.  Because involvement in enforcing a "No Fly" zone over Libya might be construed by some as an act of war, we expect the usual suspects to come out and protest American involvement in this "aggression" by the United States.  It is bound to happen, especially when so many of our voters and politicians seem to take direction from Hollywood actors and  "peaceful" labor unions.  

We support the "No Fly" zone as a humanitarian gesture.  Genocide is not something we can disregard, and Qadaffi did turn his guns on the people of Libya, destroying towns and cities and killing many.  Mr. Kristol believes that "It is better late than never."  We question:  Is it?  We believe that Mr. Kristol adequately answers our query.

Two Sisters. 

Better Late Than Never
by William Kristol



Conservatives should keep pushing the Obama administration to act in Libya.


Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air is understandably exasperated and angered by the Obama administration's "lack of leadership and the vacillation" on Libya, to say nothing of their "weakness and incompetence." I couldn't agree more with his exasperation and anger—and reading team Obama's juvenile excuses and shallow rationalizations for not having acted until now (see, e.g. today's New York Times article) made me not just angry but almost sick this morning.

Having said that, I must respectfully take issue with Morrissey’s notion that "the axiom ‘better late than never’ doesn’t apply in warfare." It sometimes does apply. It was better to act late rather than never in Bosnia in 1995, and for that matter in Iraq (when we should have acted in 1991). It certainly would have been better to have acted sooner in Libya—as many of us have been urging—but in this case the situation still seems fluid, and we shouldn't let up making the case for action, especially since the administration finally seems to be considering serious action.

The fact is, we don't know that it's too late to affect the outcome in Libya. A combination of no-fly and no-drive zones, and a willingness to use force at least to prevent Qaddafi from conquering the Bengazi enclave, could well still make a difference. And as Max Boot explains, getting to a standoff might still lay the groundwork for the defeat of Qaddafi. So we shouldn't excuse the Obama administration from acting today or tomorrow because they should have acted two weeks ago.

The outcome in Libya remains too important for U.S. interests (Qaddafi in power after all this, with all the resources he has, is a nightmare in terms of terror and even weapons of mass destruction), U.S. principles, and the future of the Middle East, for us to give up hope now. Believing the Obama administration might still do the right thing, and do it moderately effectively, may involve the audacity of hope—but better that than the resignation of despair. Because the Obama administration's failure will be America's failure, for which we could pay a price for a long time.


© Copyright 2011 The Weekly Standard
 
William Kristol is the editor of The Weekly Standard and frequent member of the Special Report with Brett Baier discussion panel on Fox News.  To read more of Mr. Kristol's editorials visit www.weeklystandard.com.