Obama's Libya indecision

"Gates is clearly not on board with what's going on and now the Defense Department may have an entirely different war on its hands that he's not into."

As last week began, it was believed across Washington that military action against Gaddafi was not an option. A few days after that, Le Maison Blanche (Casa de Obama) completely changed position. Why did the messianic Obama change stances like the flick of a switch and decide to fire missiles and initiate a third war in Africa?

Essentially it was on the initiative of the US State Department that the attitude toward Libya's dictator changed. Initially, President Obama was perfectly fine with Libya's maniacal warlord killing innocent men, women, and children in numbers to quell the uprising for freedom in Gaddafi's autocratic state. As long as the oil was flowing and the country did not openly support terrorism, Obama could care less what damage Gaddafi inflicted on his people. Clearly Obama lacks any semblance of what an ordinary American citizen would call a moral compass. He has to, he's a president with a bogus "War on Terror."

The only time anything vaguely resembling some form of morality in Obama is when certain factors come to the public's attention which may reflect on him. Then he will fire a corrupt administration official who had cheated on his taxes or wage war on a merciless dictator like Gaddafi - keep it in the closet and Obama won't lift a finger, air it in public and the man turns on a dime.

Tuesday evening Barack Obama aligned himself with the interventionists in a meeting described by insiders as "extremely contentious." Hillary Clinton was on the side of an interventionist policy that included the implementation of a no-fly zone over Libya while Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the fallen warlord behind the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles, stood firmly against any form of intervention, knowing, perhaps more than most others at the meeting how tits up invasions of remote foreign countries can go and probably feeling the guilt of so much innocent blood on his conscience (if in fact he has one).

"This is the greatest opportunity to realign our interests and values," Obama apparently said at the meaning. Politics at it's best. Let's initiate a foreign war that has (at least the appearance of) justification and win back an amount of respect in the Arab world as well as with the American public that we had no intention of going into a week ago because it had not garnered the worldwide attention it presently captivates.

Let's look at the difference in his Libyan strategy (if it can be called that) and his strategy regarding Egypt and Tunisia. Obama chose not to take any involvement in these revolutions but to back off and let the countries resolve their destinies for themselves, and for a few weeks Obama was content to take this positionn on Libya as well. In Yemen and Bahrain, both hosts to violent uprisings, Obama has said nothing. Why the different approach to Libya? Why the military approach?

Obama threw out his prior strategy completely in Libya. Is it petroleum motivated? Or the fact that Gaddafi took an open stand against Obama, the United States, and the world? It is probably a combination of both and the feeling of other factors (more powerful than a mere president) in the US government that feel more active involvement is necessary in what they might consider a balancing  of the Middle East through an assertion of the US and NATO's dominant hard power (in other words, overtly tipping the scales in their favor).

Against the advice of National Security Advisor Tom Donilon and Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough, as well as against the better judgment of the Secretary of Defense, the administration decided to embark on a new war. Not all of these officials were even present on Tuesday night's meeting of top cabinet officials. Why not if the president is deciding such crucial military action? It was most odd.

Congress was not consulted on the intervention, but were told of it in a classified Thursday briefing where admin officials explained the military plan. The plan to use force had already been sent on to the United Nations Security Council. Vice-president Joe Biden sided with Robert Gates against military intervention.

"Gates is clearly not on board with what's going on and now the Defense Department may have an entirely different war on its hands that he's not into," said Clemons. "Clinton won the bureaucratic battle to use DOD resources to achieve what's essentially the State Departement's objective...and Obama let it happen."

Obama, the president who stands aside and watches his government overrun him.


Also see: 

http://unusualnewsanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/03/obamas-libya-indecision-part-ii.html

And:

http://unusualnewsanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/04/lost-libya-incursion.html