It would appear that Americans never learn. Fresh from getting bogged down in what is fast approaching a decade-long failed military occupation in Afghanistan, approaching the eight-year mark in the failed military occupation of Iraq, the Obama administration has now revealed its submission to the insane neocon foreign policy of its predecessor by preparing for military strikes on Libya.
Let us be clear about this: There is no more national security interest at stake in Libya than there was in Afghanistan or Iraq. The rationalizations being cited could just as easily be used to justify an invasion of Bahrain, Yemen, North Korea or even China. What is the difference, after all, between Gadhafi’s mercenaries marching on Benghazi and Yemeni snipers picking off 52 protesters in Sanaa? At least the Libyan rebels are armed. And does anyone believe that Libya would have been justified in bombing the United States over the federal slaughter of 76 Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas?
As Matt Drudge pointed out this weekend, the Obama presidency is increasingly turning into what looks very much like George W. Bush’s third term. Consider the juxtaposition of these two presidential statements, the second made exactly eight years after the first.
George Bush on March 19, 2003: “American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger …”
Barack Obama on March 19, 2011: “Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world …”
As we know now, there never was any grave danger to the world from Iraq or its dictator, who had somehow managed to exercise supreme power in Iraq for more than 24 years before inexplicably becoming such a pressing danger as to require a massive military invasion. The danger was particularly inexplicable, considering that the United States has permitted the Soviet Union, China, India, Pakistan and now North Korea to obtain nuclear weapons without seeing fit to intervene.
Libya, with one-fifth the population of Iraq and a military so incompetent that it could not manage to defeat an impoverished neighbor armed with up-gunned pickup trucks in the comedic 1987 Toyota war, poses even less of a threat to the United States or the rest of the world. The people of Libya are under no more threat from their lunatic leadership than they have been since Gadhafi took power in 1969. If Barack Obama is determined to answer the call of a threatened people with no regard for American interests, he would do better to send air strikes against London, Dublin and Brussels and attack those who are attempting to deny the English people their national sovereignty and inflict generations of debt servitude on the Irish.
The Libyan fiasco will play out in one of two ways. Either the French-led U.N. coalition will be content to make what is essentially a symbolic gesture of an air war against the regime, in which case Gadhafi will likely survive, or it will be forced to follow what has now become the customary post-Vietnam scenario of a gradual expansion into a ground war and military occupation. And the U.S. can ill-afford either outcome, although the latter would be much worse due to the fact that it is already engaged in expensive occupations of every enemy it has fought since 1944.
The campaign for world democratic revolution has now run the full circle, from tragedy to farce, and from farce to farcical tragedy. It is abundantly clear that there is literally no regard for limited government or American interests in the White House, regardless of whether the president is a nominal Democrat or a nominal Republican.
But there is one silver lining to be found in the Libyan fiasco. It may provide a potential explanation of the mystery of Obama’s missing birth certificate, as it appears the secret he is so determined to conceal is that his father is not Barack Obama Sr., but rather, George Herbert Walker Bush.