There can be only one motivation behind our military involvement in the Libyan civil war, a weakening of US power and independence. Getting involved in this specific conflict makes no sense when it comes to the strategic needs of our sovereign nation, nor does it match any moral means. First of all, Libya is no threat to our nation. As a matter of fact, Libya had just received diplomatic recognition at the end of Bush presidency as Qaddafi had made many strides in disarming his nation’s capacity to create weapons of mass destruction. This is a very important fact when we examine the morality aspect. Instability in Libya does affect global oil supply, which will affect already high gas prices. However, as Libya accounts for some 1% of US oil, this effect on global oil could be offset in a dramatic way, without the single firing of a weapon or killing of a person, by the very real advocacy of domestic oil drilling. When Bush announced the idea of oil exploration, oil prices dropped. If we put some real meat into our words, I think oil would drop before the first well is tapped. Therefore, there can be no military or economic threat to our nation from Libya. Could the threat be terrorism? As I mentioned earlier, Qaddafi had ended his wmd program. He did this out of fear of George Bush. However, it was clear early on that he does not fear Obama. In fact, he considers Obama ‘one of us’. It is possible Qaddafi could again actively pursue state sponsored terrorism as he did in the 80’s, but what Middle Eastern nation is not? So this cannot be the grounds for our involvement in a 3rd war. Oh, just to reiterate, under Obama, we are now involved in 3 wars. Bush was the worst person to sit in the oval office because of 2, but now that we are in 3, shouldn’t Obama have that distinction. As a friend of mine said, Obama has now fired more Tomahawk cruise missiles than any other Nobel Peace Prize winner. But, I digress.
If we are not engaging in this action because of a military or economic threat posed by Libya, it must be on moral grounds. I mean, Qaddafi is firing on his own citizens, citizens that had taken over several cities and taken up arms against the loyalist forces of Qaddafi, citizens whose goal is not known. Do we have a moral authority to intervene in every countries civil war. Would we have appreciated an intervention by British ground troops in our own civil war. But, let’s take this claim at face value, that we have a moral duty to protect citizen against a hostile government. If this was the case, why have we not intervened in Iran, as the very type of freedom loving protests we should support have been brutally put down? Why do we not intervene in Bahrain, or Saudi Arabia? Why have we not invaded North Korea to prevent the starvation of its citizens? Why do we not protect the Christians and black Muslims in the Sudan? Why do we not invade China for its government brutality against its citizens? Why do we not invade our own country for the brutality conducted against our citizens still in the womb?
Ultimately, it comes down to the age old question of what war is moral. I don’t think I have the answer to that, but, I think the real hint as to why the dovish Obama is willing to drop ordinance on Libya is in the process. You see, Obama has negated the role of our elected legislature in the authorization of force. Instead, this action has been taken at the direction of the United Nations and the United Nations only. If the United Nations had drafted a security resolution to bomb Malta, Obama would have been the first to launch the missiles because his goal is to show that we move to the beat and interests of the international community as led by the United Nations. Let’s see how Congress will react. When knowing that Obama’s goal is to tear this nation down both internally and internationally, our engagement in Libya is clear.