Obama’s Actions Speak Louder than His Words
The President addressed at the National Defense University in Washington, Monday, March 28 and spoke about the mission in Libya. President Obama made it clear that his administration see’s Gaddafi as an overwhelming threat to our national security. He prefaced this idea with “examples” of Gaddafi’s pension for violence. Yet in describing the horrific conditions Coronal Gaddafi has been responsible for, one could not help but liken the same behavior demonstrated by the United States Military in Iraq and Afghanistan.
He stated: “For more than 4 decades the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant.” President Obama went on to list the actions of Gaddafi that justify such a label. “…he has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad and terrorized innocent people around the world, including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents.”
However, the President fails to mention that the United States and Libya had in fact, as recently as 2006, re-established full diplomatic ties with Libya because Libya had abandoned its nuclear and other unconventional weapons programs and helped in the campaign against terrorism, this was after the incident described by the President as Libya “killing Americans.”
One of the points that were discussed at the event was the notion of regime change. Obama vehemently denied that it was the intension of the United States to go into Libya with the express intent of ousting Gaddafi. However, in language that left little in the way of options that is exactly what he specified must be done. While it has been confirmed that Libyan Leader Mohamar Gaddafi has inflicted conditions on his people that have been horrific, brutal and inhumane, the same can be said of many instances where the United States has, and continues, to do the exact same thing. Therefore it is of little validity that the President states that he authorized the use of military force in the attempt to “prevent a massacre” when he could just as easily, withdraw from military force to stop a massacre. (In Afghanistan and Iraq)
The President’s position (as stated in this address) would lead one to believe that we would get involved in many places throughout the world in which we could prevent massacres. Places like Darfur, in which the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A) and Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) groups in Darfur took up arms, accusing the Sudanese government of oppressing non-Arab Sudanese in favor of Sudanese Arabs. This has been an ongoing battle since February of 2003. The United States Government has made little or no effort to intervene in the Sudan where there has been countless men, women and children brutally murdered in the ethnic cleansing of that region. Perhaps the lack of an ability to control the oil reserves of that nation is a determining factor in their decision.
As the President spoke in this address he emphatically reiterated that the U.S. will be handing over most of the responsibility of the campaign to a coalition of nations. The nations include the United States, France, Britain, Canada, Italy, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
President Obama has made it a habit to go back on his word. He had promised in his campaign for the oval office that he would not use signing statements as a means of by-passing the Constitution and usurping the power and authority of the United States Congress. Barack Obama has used this means of power consolidation and means of sidestepping the Constitution many times since making that Campaign Promise. He has gone back on his word many times in the past and there is every indication that this is a character trait that he isn’t going to give up anytime soon.