printEstrogen driven paternalism: That’s the impetus behind Obama’s offensive in Libya. Patrick J. Buchanan sums it up:
“Why are we in Libya? Why are U.S. pilots bombing and killing Libyan soldiers who have done nothing to us?
These soldiers are simply doing their sworn duty to protect their country from attack and defend the only government they have known from what they are told is an insurgency backed by al-Qaida and supported by Western powers after their country’s oil.
Why did Obama launch this unconstitutional war?
Moral, humanitarian and ideological reasons.
Though Robert Gates and the Pentagon had thrown ice water on the idea of intervening in a third war in the Islamic world – in a sandbox on the northern coast of Africa – Obama somersaulted and ordered the attack, for three reasons.
The Arab League gave him permission to impose a no-fly zone. He feared that Moammar Gadhafi would do to Benghazi what Scipio Africanus did to Carthage. And Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power conveyed to Obama their terrible guilt feelings about America’s failure to stop what happened in Rwanda and Darfur.
This is the three sisters’ war.
But why was it America’s moral duty to stop the Tutsi slaughter of Hutus in Burundi in 1972 or the Hutu counter-slaughter of Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994? Why was that not the duty of their closest African neighbors, Zaire (Congo), Uganda and Tanzania?
These African countries have been independent for a half-century. When are they going to man up?
The slaughter in Darfur is the work of an Arab League member, Sudan. Egypt, the largest and most powerful Arab nation, is just down the Nile. Why didn’t the Egyptian army march to Khartoum, a la Kitchener, throw that miserable regime out, and stop the genocide?
Why doesn’t Egypt, whose 450,000-man army has gotten billions from us, roll into Tobruk and Benghazi and protect those Arabs from being killed by fellow Arabs? Why is this America’s responsibility?”
Read “How killing Libyans became a moral imperative.”
UPDATE (March 27): USA=GOD.
Myron Robert Pauli on my Facebook page: “Another great column from Diana West on the strategic hooey of the War in Libya (a no fly zone imposed on Israel by the US-NATO-UN-Arab-League could occur one day) http://jewishworldreview.com/0311/west.php3
My reply: M., all the obligatory stuff about it “never being a bad notion to rid the planet of Gaddafi”: as if there aren’t a few fellows here in the US one could easily live without.
The idea that the US decides who the world can do without and who can remain boggles my mind. Still, after years in this country.
I love West, but, as far as I know, Diana supported the Iraq adventure, at first.
Another refreshing perspective from Ilana.
This intervention is just wrong on so many levels. And I’m no peace-sign waiving hippie, I did my national service with pride and do believe in just wars. This is not one.
I have been wondering, should the American South decide to secede from the USA, and they take whatever steps they have to including military steps to defend their new borders, Washington would probably use military might to put a stop thereto. Will the UN then intervene in stopping Washington from using military force against the South? If they do will Washington have the moral high ground to complain about UN intervention? (not that the UN will intervene, its too lame, only willing to take on small fry). I do not belief they thought this war through properly.
Does anyone even how many Libyans are actually opposed to Gadhafi?
Why is the revolt in Libya any business of the Americans? Obviously it isn’t. Remember though, Obama does nothing unless he has a hidden agenda of some sort or else he’s just an incompetent boob. Or some combination of the two. Also I have always been interested in the crocodile tears shed by the left for the victims of African genocide such as Darfur and Rwanda while ignoring the thousands of white victims of the same genocidal assault down in South Africa.
The purpose is to establish precedent for the UN “obligation to protect” doctrine. This doctrine will be used to create more chaos, and then – eventually – as the reason to attack Isreal.
We can be sure of the hypocrisy of this Libyan undertaking be the fact that our government will remain passive, if not covertly supportive, of violent crackdowns on protesters in Bahrain and Yemen. How soon until the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Muslims are running Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia?
Many questions here. One (hopefully) unambiguous answer to them all: (1) from a religious perspective … the fruit consumed by Eve (and later by her mate) was not an apple (see Latin “malum”); or from the secular … the philosophy of Karl Popper (“paradox of tolerance”) in his “Open Society” (which seems to deteriorate into Marx and the use of force).
Interfering in an internal Vietnamese struggle where the “North” (communists) conquered the “South” and killed 200,000 resulted in an extra 4,000,000 being killed. Is there ANY evidence that Gadhafi would commit “genocide” as opposed to a 1989 Chinese jailing of around 10,000 regime opponents? Furthermore, jailing of 10,000 people dedicated to overthrowing you is hardly more unreasonable than jailing millions of pot smokers – see
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/opinion/19blow.html?_r=1&ref=charlesmblow
So should the UN authorize force against New York City for harassing young black men over the last 10 years since they MIGHT be smoking dope??
The neocons have “Munich and Hitler” and the neoliberals have “Rwanda and Darfur” – either of which, REGARDLESS OF ANY FACTS OR EVIDENCE, “justifies” pushing the US to war. This defies the Constitutional provisions and early historical precedents to confine war to (1) defensive actions or (2) American rights to use of the seas or (3) punish piracy, rebellions, and Indian raids.
Pat and Ilana have good columns – sadly, 90% of the “mainstream” op-ed writers of the media are all pro-war power suckups. Being skeptical on the exercise of “bold executive leadership” puts one at the op-ed “fringe” even if the American public themselves are more divided.
Read:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods167.html
Robert: Agreed that your interpretation of the Adam and Eve story is correct. I break it down further to the simple “And you shall KNOW good from evil” as the tendency to place Intellectualism above common sense. Hence we have leaders that KNOW what is best. Common sense tells us that Libya is a sovereign nation and its internal affairs are between its citizens and their government; however, the fruit of the tree of knowledge “Intellectualism’ states that we, especially in the US should interfere. As one person (Kenneth Copeland coined the phrase) “Ignorance gone to seed.”
You all have covered the Libyan policy problems and the potential consequences (intended and unintended) pretty well. Pol Pots killing fields were also a result of the Vietnam aftermath.
I have a question and a comment for Ilana. I like the fact that you have pointed out the “estrogen factor” that appears to have led Obama down this path. In the past you have commented on the feminization of the American male. I would say the troika of women leading the President in this manner also illustrates the feminization of the American male, does it not? One of my favorite quotes about the way the west has treated its males comes from T. S. Elliot it goes something like “castrate the geldings and tell them to go forth and be fruitful”.
[Great comment.]
It is a boon to warmongers and power hungry American politicians (and their suckup coterie such as Samantha Power and Susan Rice) that the world does not suffer from a bad guy shortage.
The US has taken up the role of “The Lord High Executioner” of Gilbert and Sullivan’s Mikado and we even have “A Little List” of bad guys whom to go to war with:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN4T-L-lz-4
Mike: CS Lewis- “We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and then bid the geldings to be fruitful.”–CS Lewis–
Reference “Old Retired Petty Office Blog”