Share This

Friday, March 25, 2011

Widgets

Another Military intervention (Libya)...Here We Go Again!

Let me jump right into the conclusion first: the “allied” (hardly an accurate affiliation since America is providing the lion’s share of the effort in terms of material and cost) air strikes against Moammar Gadhafi’s forces are ill-advised. My bad. I didn’t mean to state my position so cryptically, as if I were either running for public office or were a career politician trying to avoid being pinned to a policy position which could go either way…good or bad.
I am stating for the record that I am firmly against the American military intervention going on in Libya. And before any critics out there start popping off at the mouth about how its unlike you to be against a policy which is at essence a humanitarian endeavor, there are several practical reasons why the country needs to reconsider its direct intervention in the growing political (and now civil) unrest in the Middle East.


Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi from earlier this month (AP photograph)

For one thing, America simply does not know the identities of all of the Libyan rebel movement’s key players. This reflects the reality that going into a political/military hotbed without knowledge of who or which organized faction(s)is/are leading the opposition against the longtime leader of the North African nation was a hastily-crafted (and executed) opportunistic foreign policy endeavor. And such an undertaking under these circumstances could be perceived as questionable decision-making at best. Who after all, jumps feet first into a fight where the combatants are someone who is a longtime enemy, and an implied opponent whose intentions are likewise implied? The last time this happened with regards to American foreign policy, we got the quagmire that was and continues to be Iraq.
Another reasonable justification as to why America should not be involved in what is essentially an internal affair of Libya is that being so gives off the more-than-valid perception—to both would-be friends and foes alike—is that America’s Middle Eastern policy is inconsistent, and biased…no matter the White House administration in authority. With regards to the current wave of popular uprisings throughout the Arab World, and up until the very moment the first million-dollar-apiece cruise missile began hitting targets on Libyan soil, America kept its interventions to the level of democratic (small “d”) rhetoric. Even when America’s regional ally Saudi Arabia—whose own popular protests helped topple longtime pro-American president Hosni Mubarak—sent its own troops into neighboring Bahrain to help quell political unrests there which threatened to unseat the unpopular Bahrainian king, very little in the way of calls for any kind of Western action was heard from within the Obama Administration. Granted the level of brutality brought to bear by (the) Arab governments under siege against their respective opponents varies, the fact of the matter is that there seems to be an unspoken line of demarcation in Middle Eastern sand with regards to suppression of protests against unpopular leaders/leadership; in one country it’s an internal affair, while in another it’s a violation of human rights. Even this morning, Syrian authorities have been shooting protesters down in the streets as reported by CNN and other news outlets, with no word of calls for action coming from Washington as of this writing.
The final reason against military intervention is simply cost. With the estimated cost of just one Tomahawk cruise missile at $100 million dollars each, one can only estimate how much money this little excursion into ill-advised geopolitical territory is costing the American taxpayer. And one would think that with the conservative political wolves (i.e., The Republican Party and their Tea Party patrons) already at the door, President Obama would be a little more discriminating about how to best spend the American taxpayer dollar, especially in light of the often-cited justification against the president's propensity to "spend wildly"as a result of his domestic policies.

Indeed, one could conceivably argue that Libya’s brutal actions against opponents of its ruling regime could have been nipped in the bud if American military intervention were consistently applied based on human rights instead of the concept of real politick, and if we were clearly stating our positions and telegraphing our intent to intervene with regards to such. It seems that America’s foreign policy, especially with regards to the Middle East reflects its domestic political policies of inconsistency and ideological cherry-picking…which results in nothing in the way of substantive change.

2 comments:

  1. (Brother Brown) - Beyond The Political Spectrum:

    It would be unfair of me to "Put you on trial" for the deeds of the balance of the "Black Racial Services Machine" who is working in service to "Progressivism", under the guise of supporting Obama/Democratic Party AGAINST "Right Wing Attacks".

    Anyone who is watching Black people can see that to get "Negroes to do something" - LIFT UP a RIGHT WING ENEMY and they will do the unthinkable - even stay quiet as Africa is invaded.

    I can only build my model and then measure you by where you stand.

    In YOUR analysis above - you talked about AMERICA and (to some extent) the Obama Administration.

    I challenge you to TALK ABOUT THE AMERICAN NEGRO!!!

    My summary statement: Today we are dealing with "REVERSE 'DR KINGS'".
    When it came to challenging "Injustice ANYWHERE" - they chose to focus upon their "Domestic Progressive Public Policy" and gave the Commander In Chief a pass - again - justifying their decision based on what THE RIGHT WING would due to exploit the "divide".

    Guess what, Brother Brown - IT WORKED LIKE A CHARM!!!!

    We now see that if NATO (America and 5 African Colonizers") want to BLOW UP the Navy of a nation, destroy its communications infrastructure, drop drone bombs upon buildings - get a CONFIDENCE MAN as the FACE OF THE GOVERNMENT - which the "Negro is inclined to Protect" to call it a HUMANITARIAN MISSION.

    King Leopold II of Belgium called his attack upon "The Congo" 100 years ago the same thing - but no one bought it at that time.

    Brother Brown - I attended Cynthia McKinney's "Anti-Libya War" rally back in 2011 at "The Shrine Of The Black Madonna".

    There was more discussion of THE RIGHT WING and ZIONISM than there was any ORGANIC indictment against the Obama Administration.

    At the end of the session - one Progressive activist raised her hand in the audience and asked a question that prompted me to want to "kiss her in the mouth": "With all that we have discussed here about the Obama Administration aggression - in support of the ZIONISTS".............'What does this mean for next years PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?"

    EVERY SINGLE PANELIST said "A Democrat who is a RIGHT-WINGER when it comes to foreign policy IS BETTER THAN ANY REPUBLICAN who will be a right-winger for both DOMESTIC and FOREIGN POLICY!!!"

    Right before my eyes, Brother Brown - WHAT WAS AN "ANTI-WAR RALLY" turned into a "PRO-OBAMA RALLY".
    ( I was STUNNED and then I WAS STUNNED that I WAS STUNNED - for I KNEW WHAT I WAS DEALING WITH ALREADY)


    Long story short, Brother Brown - HOW DO YOU PLAN TO DEAL WITH THE BLACK RACIAL SERVICES MACHINE which has FUSED THE "BLACK COMMUNITY STRUGGLE" into an intractable franchise with the AMERICAN POLITICAL DOMAIN - so much so - that it had to fundamentally compromise MUCH OF WHAT IT STANDS FOR - and use PROPAGANDA to the LOYAL SUBJECTS to FRONT that it is SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT IT REALLY IS?

    ReplyDelete