Obama’s War of Choice

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, March 30, 2011

If the issue at hand was not so serious and its outcome so important to our nation’s position as the world’s sole superpower, it would be hilarious the way our Commander-in-Chief has been forced to reveal the fluidity and vacuity of his words.

I am speaking, of course, of the current war in Libya (despite my brother’s claim that this current “kinetic military operation” does not rise to that definition, my Encarta Dictionary provides the following definition: “a period of hostile relations between countries, states, or factions that leads to fighting between armed forces, especially in land, air, or sea battles.”). So, when we send Tomahawk missiles toward military targets and fly sorties over Libyan airspace with hostile intentions, we are at war and when those missions were ordered without congressional approval, it is unconstitutional, but then, why should words or protocol matter when one determines policy and principle based solely upon the ethics of the moment and the popularity of the polls.

The “hypocrisy” Keith mentions in his essay referred to the apparent change of heart taken place by those who favored military action in Iraq, but who now seem reluctant to use force in Libya. I would point out to Keith that these two operations bear little resemblance to each other. True, they are both Eastern nations controlled by despots and both leaders have defied UN sanctions, however, there are several areas in which they are very dissimilar.

In Iraq we had a history of Saddam’s willingness to invade and conquer his neighboring states (Kuwait), we had evidence of weapons of mass destruction used by Saddam against his own people and the Turks, we had over 39 nations join us in a coalition of forces (Obama could muster less than 25 and several of those in the Arab League have since declined to continue their support) and we had debate and approval (including over 118 Democrats such as Hilary Clinton and John F. Kerry – before he opposed it!) in Congress before operations began – not 45 hours after the missiles were fired and troops deployed.

The words of a senator who opposed that effort, despite all of the above reasons, are here offered for your consideration:

That’s what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors...and that, in concert with the international community, he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
-http://obamaspeeches.com/001-2002-Speech-Against-the-Iraq-War-Obama-Speech.htm

The words above came from a speech given by then Illinois State Senator, Barack H. Obama in October of 2002 while debate was being conducted in Congress and in the public sphere over the need to hold Saddam accountable to the conditions of his surrender and to prevent his continued support of international terrorism. We see none of these situations at play in Libya today.

What we see in Libya can best be described as a tribal conflict with no clear distinction between the ideals of the two combatants. It is true that the rebels suffer a disadvantage in firepower as long as Khaddafi has a functioning air force. In the present war strategy, we should limit our involvement to eliminating that advantage. We should not align ourselves (i.e. provide arms or training) with any rebel group unless and until we determine the true intent and content of that group.
Regarding Obama’s above warning concerning “an invasion without a clear rationale” we see in this current war no clear rationale or distinct goal. We heard Obama say “Khaddafi must go” but we also hear Secretary of State Hilary Clinton tell us that it is not our intention to attack Khaddafi directly (even though the main targets of our missiles has been his compound) and we hear another side from Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs, who said on March 20: it “isn't about seeing him (Gadhafi) go.” Mullen, asked whether it was possible that the mission’s goals could be achieved while leaving Gadhafi in power, said, “That’s certainly potentially one outcome”. Again we hear this from one of our allies, British Foreign Secretary William Hague who said, “It is not about regime change”.

In conclusion, it is clear that Obama has entered into this war without fully counting the cost or determining the desired outcome. It is justly named “Operation Odyssey Dawn” because the definition of “odyssey” is “a wandering trip or a long series of travels and adventures”, unlike the aptly named “Operation Iraqi Freedom” which could be seen as a success when we saw purple fingers waved in the air after Iraqi citizens were blessed with the freedom of voting. We have no idea what we shall see when this odyssey is over.