Right down to the day in fact. March 19th, the eighth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, the United States once again engages in military air strikes against a Middle Eastern nation. Only this time, the expansion of our military into a third front is being committed by a President that was elected by a war-weary nation eager to see our country out of Front #2… Iraq. “He must leave or we will use force to stop him”, explained President Bush in 2002 and President Obama on Friday. And suddenly, I feel very sick to my stomach.

Even the talk as to why this action was necessary seems almost word-for-word identical to the language used eight years ago. “We are dealing with a tyrant”, “a supporter of terrorism”, “a man who has used the military to massacre his own people.” And if all that weren’t enough… WMD’s entered the picture Saturday with reports of “stockpiles of Mustard Gas” hitting the news.

Eight years ago, it was a Republican President doing it, with Democrats raising objections and asking questions. Eight years later, the Commander-in-Chief is a Democrat and Republicans are questioning the wisdom of invading. It’s all very “through the looking glass”… a reference to (of course) not only “Alice in Wonderland”, but the fact that “looking glass” is another name for “mirror”. And what did I just describe in the previous sentence?

Fox’s “General” Bill “the Bloody” Kristol thinks that simple air-to-surface missile strikes aren’t enough, we also need to think about sending in “ground forces” and turn this “peace-keeping mission” into a full-blown war. And why not? It’s not HIS butt on the line. But THAT wasn’t the most disturbing part of his comment yesterday on FnS. It was the fact he opened supporting President Obama’s decision to use force against Libya and felt that… despite the Presidents’ assurances otherwise… that he would eventually acquiesce and commit ground forces into Libya, citing how “President Clinton also said we would not send ground forces into Kosovo, yet eventually did.” And he believes President Obama is likely to do the same. Despite “Kristol Ball’s” record, I’m not so sure he’s wrong on this one.

Now, certainly, no one is eager to sit back and watch as Kadafi uses the military to slaughter his own people. But we clearly didn’t feel the same desperate need to intervene in Darfur now, did we? How about the Congo? In both cases, the military was slaughtering the civilian population. Hundreds of thousands died. Like Libya, these were African nations too. Why were those deaths any less of a call to international military intervention?

We asked that same question about Iraq eight years ago. If we’re going to “police the world”, what is the deciding factor as to whether we actually intervene or not? Is it that Libya & Iraq are/were “supporters of terrorism”? The question I asked eight years ago was, “Do we REALLY want to give someone that supposedly has WMD’s a reason to use them?” President Bush actually took Libya off the list of “nations that support terrorism”, restored the normalization of trade with them in 2006 and Republicans didn’t say “Boo” (I searched in vain for fifteen minutes looking for articles from April to June of 2006 containing ANY criticism by Republicans of President Bush’s decision to restore ties to Libya and turned up nothing.) And now, suddenly, we need to use military force against this “supporter of terrorism”? He’s just as much a terrorist today as he was in 2006.

So, are we once again engaging in a “war for oil”? Is this “Operation Invade Libya”?


RSS Please REGISTER to post comments or be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE7+ users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS
Writers Wanted