It is not my intention to write a clear, concise article about the U.S. policy towards Libya of late. That is because the U.S. policy towards Libya is not clear nor concise to me. As President Barack Obama has articulated, and re-articulated, and articulated the third time, his thinking on the situation, the world has been surprised at his sort of, on-again, off-again, leadership. The President's advisors cannot tell him what to do on principle because they have no principles in foreign affairs, other than showing American weakness.
There is no doubt they want Qhadaffi, Kadaffi, ... whatever today's spelling is - gone. When you are a world leader, however, the entire globe is waiting for your answer to the next question: "What are you prepared to do about it?"
This is where President Obama freezes. Those whispering in his ear have suddenly lost their voice. They are willing to respond to pressure for a no-fly zone. They do not want to be left enforcing one, without end. They are willing to drop some bombs but they do not want to drop bombs. They settle for a sometimes "Yes", sometimes "No", answer to bombing Libya. In short, they would like to order only a little bit of war, as a side item.
We hear that Libya is not a serious threat to the U.S. with regards to oil supplies. At the same time, we hear that the Libya crisis will cause oil prices to shoot up to $5.00 gallon this summer. We are assured that oil is not the reason we are in Libya (unless we will buy that?).
We are exercising military muscle in Libya for humanitarian reasons. Oh, this one sounds good to the Obama White House! We will use our might around the globe to end the suffering of humanity. Obama's advisors think this sounds Carteresque, and they think that is a good thing. Jimmy Carter was a weak President domestically but he was near traitorous in his foreign policies. He armed North Korea with nuclear capabilities we now fear coming to fruition. He betrayed the friendship of the Shah of Iran, ending a reign of the Shah's family of more than 2500 years. In return, we got the Iran Hostage crisis and instability throughout the Middle East. He gave away the Panama Canal for all purposes and he gave it away to the Chinese of all people! Carter had no influence with OPEC as they raised aggressively raised oil prices. Our most bold and aggressive move in response to all of this was for Americans to wear "WIN" buttons for "Whip Inflation Now." Our energy policy was to "hunker down" and conserve. Impersonating Jimmy Carter is the realm of foreign policy is never a good idea.
If humanitarian reasons are our cause for being in Libya, then what about North Korea? North Koreans have routinely died from starvation and political oppression. Why do we not go into North Korea? Why do we not go into the Sudan? Somalia? Cuba? We do not go into all of the places on the globe for humanitarian reasons because we can't afford it - not in troops, not in money, not in political capital. No, the calls for humanitarianism simply ring hollow. If we were really serious about humanitarianism, we would send our troops down on the Mexican border and make sure our citizens on the border are not terrorized by the smuggling and drug trades.
Then the news breaks that the Libyan rebels we are helping are often Al-Qaeda operatives. I wish we would have checked their IDs before we went to war on their behalf on matters that do not concern us. How can we give the American people a clear strategy when we don't even know the war parties involved?
Our President has an uncertain voice in all things dealing with foreign policy. That is dangerous for the entire world. The world looks to the United States foreign policy as a bell weather. They may hate us, but they want and need to know where we stand. If our positions are hopelessly muddled, they will find the rest of the world will be less clearly defined.
The thing we have seen consistently from our President and his whispering advisors has been weakness and indecision. If the polls do not show well on today's position, we will change it tomorrow. If tomorrow's polls are not good, we will either change to a third position or claim we never left the first one. We are doing the Hokey Pokey with the tough decisions like Libya.
What should we do globally? We should cut our missions around the world. We should stop involving ourselves in every tempest in a teapot. The Libyans should be left to determine their own fate. We should bring troops home from Germany, Japan, Iraq, South Korea, Afghanistan, Great Britain, etc. We have more troops in Germany than we do in Iraq? Huh? We do not need to pull out of all of these regions totally, but we need to drastically reduce the size of our military overseas. We do need to employ our military on our southern border. We need to cross that border and fight Mexico, if necessary, to stop the rape of our Southwest.
The Founding Fathers saw a prime purpose of government is to provide for the common defense. It is time the U.S. quits meddling throughout the world and provide for our common defense. We can be confident in that mission. We can believe in that mission. We can understand that mission. We could know what we are doing and the rest of the world could see it and respect it. Maybe then, Mr. President, you would not be flip-flopping every day. If nothing else has sold you yet, it could get you votes!
