The War in Libya and American Politics

The old saying goes, "The more things change, the more they stay the same". It certainly seems to apply to President Barack Obama and the art of war.

Ronald Reagan was routinely criticized for his use of the military in areas of the world where we presumably had no interest. In that light it is fascinating to see the current Chief Executive railing against Libya. As John McCain said, Obama's policy with regards to that north African nation is simply that Gadhafi must go.

On the surface, that appears to be a much stronger attack on a foreign nation which has offered no real threat to us since, well, since President Reagan laid the smackdown on it back in the 1980s. Yet the media doesn't seem to mind Obama's warmongering. Why?

In part because it's a liberal leader rather than a prototypical right wing reactionary (in their minds) leading the way. But surely part of it lies in the fact that the only real area of American politics where the President holds a tremendous amount of sway is in foreign policy. Combine this with the fact that Obama and the Democrats are in trouble at home with the 2012 elections looming, and we see what is truly their inspiration: they want and need a foreign policy victory, especially one which is easily painted as being in support of freedom for the Libyan people, in order to shore up the chances of a better result for the Democrats and their President two Novembers from now.

We are not saying this is all the reason for their support of the Libyan rebels, but it is surely a huge factor in their rationale. In short, don't give the President too much credit. He's really only using Libya to fight his own political war stateside.

Libya and Domestic Drilling

The United States, as well as other nations in the world, are apparently considering military force to restore order in Libya while helping topple the long time government of Moammar Gadhafi. It will be interesting to see how such plans pan out.

Some kind of action may be necessary for humanitarian reasons. At least, that is the view of some supposed humanitarians; but would someone please say, 'Somalia?' Because as noble as it sounds, humanitarian endeavors into areas where government is failing if it exists at all are at least arguably the worst reason to enter into any semblance of war. Say what you will about Afghanistan and Iraq, in those places the US and her Allies were at least facing relatively organized governmental structures. There was and has been a certain order in those theaters of war. Does that exist in Libya anymore?

Is a merely peacekeeping role even possible within an anarchic environment? With overwhelming force, perhaps, but does the situation in Libya merit as much? To be blunt, if we need that nation's oil, yes...but we can and should do what we can to exploit our own domestic oil and wells before we could justify that. Does the Obama Administration have the guts to do that?

For let us be blunt once again: isn't the whole interest of the United States in the Middle East, no matter how justified (and under the current circumstances, we think it is) about oil? About energy? Well, why not exploit our own resources? Until the left allows us to do that (and kindly refrain from those tired calls for alternative energy, as nothing widespread and affordable of that kind will be available for at least a generation), we have little option but to keep a stake in Middle Eastern politics. As such, the blood of any US soldiers and sailors, should intervention occur, must be on the hands of American liberal environmentalists.

We say, increase domestic drilling and let Libya sort herself out. Let the Chinese and Europeans who buy a lot of Libyan oil fret over Libya's internal woes. All that will happen if we intervene at all is that whatever actions we take will be called wrong anyway, even by many within our own borders. It's time to drill our own oil, and let the rest of the world worry about their own energy needs.

Time to leave the UN behind?

Yesterday, in a day of speeches which ranged, well, from the sublime to the ridiculous, the United Nations were a world forum of sorts. What long term use such a forum may offer is, or at least should be, a subject of debate.

The purpose of the body, one would think, is to work towards closer relationships among nations. Further, it is to seek long term stability and harmony among peoples, and perhaps overall we are expected to believe that it will lead eventually towards a stability which will insure security for all. But can that really happen when it is used as a sounding board for hatred, a bully pulpit for deranged leaders and rogue nations?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rambled to a half empty chamber about maybe being ready to work with the West while also attacking the those same nations in no uncertain terms. It did not sound as though Tehran actually wants dialogue.

Then the world stage was given over to a rant by Libya's Muammar Gaddafi which was called by at least one human rights activist, Geoffrey Robertson, "arguably the lowest point in that organization’s history." That in itself may be debatable, but it nonetheless demonstrates a real weakness in the whole idea of a United Nations: how can we really expect world peace and cooperation when we also give the insane ramblings of little more than mobsters who happen to be the heads of state the same standing as those of civilized countries?

If that is what the UN stands for, then perhaps we ought to consider something a bit more likely to produce true peace: smaller organizations of like minded, pro-Western nations which act in concert against these dictators. When Iran and Libya are granted equal stature with the United States and our allies, we do not advance our cause one whit. Indeed, we may be harboring long range moral equivalence. It is a road we travel at our peril.