Obama's War Speech

[jgaffney]

Or, as others have titled it, "The Wimp Goes To War."

I watched the speech last night and was curious about several things. Shouldn't the President address the nation from the Oval Office? Why the alternate location? Also, why wasn't the address given during prime time? The East Coast was in the middle of dinner and the West Coast wasn't home from work yet. What's up with that?

One part of the speech really hit me, though. This portion of the transcript is from the White House website:

Moreover, America has an important strategic interest in preventing Qaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful –- yet fragile -– transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. The writ of the United Nations Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling that institution’s future credibility to uphold global peace and security. So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.

Wait a minute here! Wasn't one of the justifications for invading Iraq, a war that is still dismissed by the Left as a unilateral war of aggression, to enforce the fourteen resolutions from the Security Council calling on Saddam to disarm and prove to us that he had done it? What about the UN's future credibility in that case?

Actually, I enjoy ridiculing Obama's efforts to seem presidential only because we've had to endure nine years of the Left continually decrying George W. Bush and his efforts to lead the country. The Left, which was seen as supporting the Global War on Terror in 2001 and 2002, suddenly reversed its position as the country geared up for the 2004 elections, undoubtedly because of goading from MoveOn and Code Pink. Talk about your politicizing of a war effort!

When it comes down to it, any time our armed forces are used for good in the world, we should support them. After Obama is relegated to the heap of one-term presidents, America's prestige in the world will still need reparing. The worst part is that Obama will be the youngest ex-president we've ever had, replacing Bill Clinton in that role. We will have his dumb a** around for years as he continually tries to convince us that he wasn't such a wimp.

[subdjoe]

I've read the transcript several times. Nothing in it make sense. Or, maybe, line by line it might make sense, but when you string it all together, try to find continuity and consistency, it just isn't there. On the one hand he praises himself for taking the lead, but then also praises Europe for taking the lead. Which is it?


Wonder where Saunterelle and Mink are on this? Will they be digging up their old "No blood for oil" signs? Or are they going to just blindly accept this illegal war (no authorization from Congress)? And Code Pink? Where are the loud, vulgar, violent protests they threw daily for 8 years?

I had posted this in my "Snacks" thread, might as well put it here too:

I watched about half of it. Kept waiting for him to say SOMTHING. Finally gave up...after all, he has never managed to say anything of substance, although he does manage to say nothing while seeming to say everything if you don't listen. Contradictions, evasions, blaming others, and some outright lies. No different from any of his other talks.

Of course, there is no question that Libya -- and the world -- would be better off with Qaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.

Nice trick, if you can pull it off. Kind of hard to dislodge a dictator without military force, or very credible threat of it.

Oh, and while the US is one of many...well, a few anyway...nations involved in this, the US is bearing the lions share of the cost. From the NY Times:

From the air, the United States is supplying much more firepower than any other country. The allies have fired nearly 200 Tomahawk cruise missiles since the campaign started on March 19, all but 7 from the United States. The United States has flown about 370 attack missions, and its allied partners have flown a similar number, but the Americans have dropped 455 precision-guided munitions compared with 147 from other coalition members.

Besides taking part in the airstrikes, the American military is taking the lead role in gathering intelligence, intercepting Libyan radio transmissions, for instance, and using the information to orchestrate attacks against the Libyan forces on the ground. And over the weekend the Air Force quietly sent three of its most fearsome weapons to the operation.

The strategy for White House officials nervous that the Libya operation could drag on for weeks or months, even under a NATO banner, is to hit Libyan forces hard enough to force them to oust Colonel Qaddafi, a result that Mr. Obama has openly encouraged.

“Certainly, the implied though not stated goal here is that the Libyan Army will decide they’re fighting for a losing cause,” said Gen. John P. Jumper, a retired Air Force chief of staff. “You’re probably dealing with a force that may not be totally motivated to continue this for the long haul.”

Ten days into the assault, the officials said that Libya’s formidable integrated air defense has been largely obliterated, and that the operation was shifting to a new phase devised to put even more pressure on the country’s armored columns and ground troops.

For the Americans, six tank-killing A-10 Warthogs that fire laser-guided Maverick missiles or 30-millimeter cannons arrived on the scene this weekend. The United States also deployed two B-1B bombers, as well as two AC-130 gunships, lumbering aircraft that orbit over targets at roughly 15,000 feet, bristling with 40-millimeter and 105-millimeter cannons. The gunships’ weapons are so precise that they could operate against Libyan forces in cities, which so far have been off limits for fear of civilian casualties.

www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/us/29military.html?_r=2

The intelligencia in Europe decries US military strength...which has allowed european countires to build down their military forces sine WWII, but now relies on that to allow Europe to seem to take the lead in Libya.

[jgaffney]

Now that Our Miss Woolsey has weighed in, maybe the progressives in Sonoma County will feel liberated to spak out against the president's war efforts.

[subdjoe]

I have to give her credit for being consistent in opposing war in general. And for actually being correct in calling it, in essence, an illegal war (batting .500 there, but getting her to admit that Congress authorized the actions in Af and Iraq would be like walking to Japan).

At least she got her tongue out of his arse long enough to finally say something negative about him.