Get our Military Forces out of Libya Now!
Why are United States armed forces involved in Libya? I think many Americans want to know the same thing. POTUS is supposed to explain his thinking to us on Monday night and I’m torn between not wanting to hear anything he has to say and wanting to hear his rationale, if there is any, for engaging in this constitutionally unauthorized military incursion.
The Secretary of Defense has said that Libya is, “of no vital interest” to the U.S. The Secretary of State has said the same thing. Admittedly, they, the President and his administration have waffled on the issue which leaves us, as well as the rest of the world wondering what the administration is thinking.
If Gaddafi stays in power Libya continues its status quo—maybe. If he is dethroned presumably someone else will rise to power—but who? That is the question on the government’s lips, no doubt. The Muslim Brotherhood stands in the forefront of contenders, it seems. If they do succeed the dictatorship, it hardly seems likely they will be a friend to the U.S. but Gaddafi wasn’t either.
Assuming the worst, a government entity antagonistic to the United States ultimately being in control in Libya may mean that once again we have spent billions we don’t have to build up an enemy that may have as their goal to harm us.
POTUS has indicated that he will depute leadership in the Med to NATO as though that will absolve the U.S. of any further involvement or responsibility.
But according to the Congressional Research Service, the United States contributes somewhere between 22% and 25% of its per capita gross national income to NATO’s civil and military budgets or $84.1 million and $430 million respectively, according to Dave Schuler of Outsidethebeltway.com.
Given that level of investment in NATO, why is the President willing to give up all leadership in NATO’s involvement in Libya? I think the answer is obvious: if something goes wrong as it is almost certain to he can simply say he had very little or nothing to do with it.
The overt excuse for Libyan involvement seems to be to protect the civilian population. Now seems an odd time to step up to the plate given that Gaddafi has been in power in that country for 42 years. There have always been dictators who have brutally subjugated their people. If their people want freedom, let them fight for it—we did. Why Libya? Why now? Oil for the United States doesn’t seem to be the answer because if it was oil would have required our presence in Bahrain, or Yemen, or Saudi Arabia, or the Gulf Emirates, or Venezuela, or Nigeria, or Mexico, or a number of other places in the world. It has been suggested by at least one conservative commentator that oil—for Europe—is the motivation for intervention because European companies are heavily invested in Libyan oil fields. If this is the case, the European Union and its member states should carry the brunt of the incursion, not the United States. We don’t need to come to the defense of Europe—again. No doubt, the excuse will be that we can’t let European countries fall economically which may very well happen if their oil supply is cut off. On the other hand, they may very well fail anyway given their reportedly profligate spending on entitlements, e.g. Greece and Spain. Wouldn’t our financial resources be better spent in building up our economy?
Why must we be the world’s policeman? If we foot the bill for other people’s freedom they will not cherish it like they would if they had fought and won it for themselves. History adequately demonstrates that truth.
The answer may well lie a little deeper than the American psyche is prepared to go. First of all, every conflict the United States has become involved in since the administration of William McKinley (the Spanish American War) was under a Democratic administration with the exceptions of the Gulf war, Iraq and Afghanistan and those wars were acceded to by Democratic majority Congresses.
Further, Obama desperately needs a distraction to continue implementation of his social agenda and, just as other Democratic administrations have done in the past, he has turned to an unjustified wishy washy foreign policy incursion in a country that has very little or no national impact to accomplish that. In addition, military adventures have always brought about economic growth which Obama badly needs right now. And finally, much as I hate to contemplate it, given Obama’s past associations, i.e. Bill Ayers, Bernadette Dorn, Van Jones, et al, he may just want to see the Muslim Brotherhood succeed in Libya as a proving ground for more Muslim successes around the world.
Get our forces out of Libya now. If the Libyan rebels demand it and can pay for it, send arms and ammunition and humanitarian aid if necessary but do not extend our military any further than they already are.
- Obama vows U.S. forces won’t get bogged down in Libya (reuters.com)
- “The coalition is going too far in Libya” – Russian envoy to NATO (rt.com)
- Barack Obama defends US military intervention in Libya (guardian.co.uk)
- Obama sets doctrine on Libya (rt.com)
- Obama: We have stopped Gaddafi’s deadly advance (rt.com)
- Libya: Narrowing the options – The Guardian (news.google.com)
- The aim of Western strikes in Libya (theworld.org)
- Muammar Gaddafi’s Forces “Fight to Save the Oil” (hotdogfish.wordpress.com)