The Libyan Situation

On March 18, the United Nations Security Council voted to authorize military action and a no-flight zone in Libya. Barack Obama launched a “limited military action” one day after the U.N.’s decision.

Obama’s plan was to use tomahawk missiles to knock out Libyan radar and communication centers around Tripoli, as well as Misurata and Surt. As of March 21, Obama has committed five combat ships, including one equipped with guided missiles, three submarines with tomahawk missiles and 42 F-16 fighter jets.

Normally one would think that Obama needs permission from Congress to engage in war, but a “limited military action” does fall under the presidential powers. If the military action continues then the president must consult Congress before continuing, even if the target is a Looney Tune of a dictator like Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

Ousting Qaddafi might not be the best move for Libya. State Rep. Robert Castelli (R-NY) believes the potential replacements are just as bad as Qaddafi. “Sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don't.”

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) was particularly unhappy with Obama’s decision stating the military action “would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense.”

Former Reagan Spokesman Mark Weinberg described Obama’s move as a rookie mistake. “Not one we should expect from an administration more than 2 years old -- especially one headed by a former U.S. senator.”

Obama plans to hand off control of the operations to European allies soon, but no such takeover has taken place yet. This marks the third Muslim country in the last decade that has seen U.S. military intervention, two under a Republican president and one under a Democrat president.

If the Libyan situation escalates, it will vindicate Former President George W. Bush because Obama’s reasons for attack are the same as Bush’s in 2003.

Saddam Hussein ordered the deaths of 300,000 to 500,000 people during his regime. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s death toll is estimated between 200 and 1,000 people since the start of the uprising in late February. According to the Energy Information Administration, Iraq had known oil reserves of 115 billion barrels of oil in 2001. According to the EIA, Libya holds 46.4 billion barrels of oil, the largest reserve in Africa. Iraq had an estimated population of 25,175,000 in 2003. Libya’s population is just a fifth of Iraq’s.

Both countries have oil and both countries were run by unstable dictators who killed their own people. Sure, it’s not proven that either country has weapons of mass destruction, but how is Obama’s reasoning any different from Bush’s reasoning?

Obama voted against the Iraq war in 2002 and in 2007 promised to bring home troops within 16 months. It’s 2011, we still have about 47,000 troops in Iraq and Obama is engaging in a tickle fight with Libya over small potatoes.

Why waste precious U.S. resources on a country like Libya when we have two other wars to fight with more to gain?