Questions arise as to what precise objective the Obama administration hopes to achieve with its action launched against Qaddafi in Libya this weekend.
As Victor Davis Hanson analyses, “When the mission in Libya and its methods are not clearly stated and the leadership role of the U.S. is not defined, then the ambiguities and paradoxes simply mount.” What has Obama coherently said we’re supposed to be doing in Libya? I’m not convinced that he even knows…and we hate to distract him on the family’s tour of South America. However, it was a cordial gesture to notify Congress of his Libyan action two days after its launch! You know, when reflecting on this type of unconventional executive action, one might question how coincidental it is that he’s touring South America, huh? Perhaps fate.
Throughout all of Obama’s feckless sound bytes transmitted over the vacation airwaves, the mission of the Libyan action and America’s role remain unclear. So, let’s allow an opportunity to observe a thoughtful and appropriate way to ‘engage’:
The stark contrast of true leadership in Reagan to the leaderless-ness of Obama could not be clearer.
Obama has run head first into this action, knowing full well that he never intended for the U.S. to take its precedented leading role, and instead relies on others to handle it. The man is incapable of understanding that despite the constant insults lobbed at this Nation, it is the U.S. that the rest of the world consistently looks towards for decisive leadership in such matters. But as Hanson concludes:
“Instead, we ignore congressional approval, broadcast to our enemies all sorts of self-imposed limitations on our use of force, have not defined the mission as the removal of Qaddafi, on day three are promising less rather than more military force, have no clue what is to replace him, and seem uncomfortable with a leadership role that would define victory and take the necessary measures to achieve it.
Under those conditions, I am afraid this president has no business putting U.S. forces in harm’s way when he not only has not answered these questions, but apparently has never considered them.”
Through hollow leadership, we have been committed to, as one journalist puts it, a “Coalition of the Leaderless.” This is no way to go into any conflict, whether militarily, executively, economically, socially, or otherwise; yet we continue to see this administration involve itself in unclear pursuits with blinders fully obstructing and ready to pawn off the reigns of responsibility.
UPDATE: How's this for a conflict and in one sentence: "The White House suggested Tuesday the mission in Libya is one of regime change, despite emphatic statements from President Obama and military brass that the goal is not to remove Moammar Gadhafi from power." So, from peacekeepers to regime changers, without removing Qaddafi? (pardon the multiple spellings of his name) The only way a regime change could take place is to remove Qaddafi; but if the rebel forces that are fighting him are reportedly aligned with Al-Qaeda, then do we really want to 'help' them? More and more, this seems to be a situation that we should not be involved in without a clear mission and proper notification given to Congress.
