The Non-War Whatchamacallit in Libya

Earlier this week, President Barack Obama delivered a prime time address to the nation to talk about the war… I mean, the conflict… I mean, the intervention…, I mean the… ummmm… okay, the “whatchamacallit” with which U.S. forces are involved in Libya.  I’ll let my favorite late-night commentators explain what I mean…

http://bcove.me/98h9yszo

So… what are we doing in Libya?  Do the ever-rising gas prices have anything to do with getting our military involved with the chaos submerging that country?  Did our intelligence community produce information indicating that Moammar Gaddafi was withholding weapons of mass destruction?  Why wasn’t Congress included in on Obama’s decision to involve the U.S. military?  Why did he not deliver a prime time address to the nation before authorizing the military intervention (if that’s what it is)?  And, last but not least, where are the protesters in all of this? 

Why am I hearing crickets all of a sudden?

In a column he wrote for Politico this week, Joe Scarborough of MSNBC’s Morning Joe provides a brief historical overview of the last decade of America’s involvement in wars abroad.  “For a decade now, we have been told of George W. Bush’s and Dick Cheney’s moral failings,” Scarborough wrote.  “Bush had to be condemned as an immoral beast who killed women and children to get his bloody hands on Iraq oil.”

Yet, I do recall President Bush seeking approval from Congress before sending our troops into Iraq.  I recall watching the Congressional hearings as well as the hearings before the United Nations in which Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice provided satellite images that our intelligence community had provided that indicated where Saddam Hussein was believed to have been hiding weapons of mass destruction.  I recall reading numerous articles and watching clips of press conferences in which Bush warned Hussein to stand down or we were going in.  Last, but not least, I watched Bush’s prime time address with my younger brother (who was soon on his way to Iraq) in which he told the American people that he gave the orders for our military to advance into Iraq and disarm Saddam Hussein.

I won’t get into whether that was the right or wrong decision at the time.  Regardless, Bush went through an open and fairly lengthy process in determining if and how the U.S. military should enter Iraq.  To this day, he’s still mocked and criticized for his decision.

Obama, on the other hand, did not follow his predecessor’s step-by-step model in deciding whether or not to become militarily engaged in Libya – especially when we still have troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I woke up last Saturday morning and learned that our forces were dropping bombs on Libya.  Interestingly, the traditionally liberal-leaning Huffington Post went so far as to say Obama had signed an order in support of Libyan rebels in secrecy.  

Even the New York Times seems a bit uncertain as to what exactly the U.S. mission is in Libya at this time.  Helen Cooper writes, “The president said he was willing to act unilaterally to defend the nation and its core interests.  But in other cases, he said, when the safety of Americans is not directly threatened but where action can be justified – in the case of genocide, humanitarian relief, regional security or economic interests – the United States should not act alone.”  So, if he intends to take on Libya unilaterally, what exactly are the core interests in doing so?  In what way does our intelligence indicate that Americans are directly threatened by Qaddafi?

Hmmmm… I’m still hearing those crickets…