So it would appear Barrack Obama has such a good reason for attacking Libya, he doesn’t think he needs to let Congress know. This last week, he alone decided to launch attacks on Libya without consulting with Congress first, then bolted to Rio De Janeiro. This by itself is grounds for impeachment, not that he traveled to Rio De Janeiro, but given the fact he authorized military action in Libya when at no time was the United States in direct danger as a result of the events taking place.
Even the most left of the liberals are angered by his move. Ralph Nader is calling for his impeachment and Dennis Kucinich is demanding he present his case to Congress immediately.
Clearly Obama had a reason. The question is; what was it? There’s really only a few rational possibilities I can think of without embarking down the Glenn Beck conspiracy roller-coaster (although, the Beck-meister appears to be correct about the Caliphate and a couple other things. I just don’t think he’s right about the reason why we are in Libya). I won’t dwell on the irrational because those possibilities are limitless.
Could oil be the reason we are in Libya? Some have argued this position before theorizing that Bush went to war to secure the Iraqi oil fields. I don’t buy that because we are still unable secure enough oil to meet our needs. The logic also fails in that any resources we gain by securing a portion of the oil is quickly negated by the cost of securing said oil. Meaning, the cost of military action in a foreign country equals or exceeds what monetary gain we get from securing the oil. Unless we plan on seizing all the oil, there really is no point in attacking Libya for this reason, especially when Libya only contributes about 5% to the world’s total oil production. Besides, if Obama was interested in the oil, we should take the Iraqi oil since they have far more of it. Furthermore, if we took Libya’s oil, there would be a bunch of European countries really pissed at us, as you’ll see why below.
Therefore, I don’t think we are in Libya for the oil and find this theory highly unlikely, but given the People’s past skepticism on such matters, it is worth discussing. If this is why Obama engaged in war with Libya, I think he’s made a fatal political move given the fact we’re already neck deep in two long lasting wars in Muslim countries that are quite unpopular around the globe. Very few voters are interested in starting a war over oil and this would do nothing to help shore up ties with the other Muslim countries. It’s only going to make matters worse because the United States is already perceived as getting too involved.
Another reason we may be in Libya is to protect the innocent people from a ruthless dictator. After all, Qaddafi is one bad dude, and in the past, has murdered his own people. However, there are a couple problems with this theory. One is, we don’t even know who is rioting and taking up arms. They could be Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood or some other Islamic militants for all we know, and recent intelligence is beginning to support this concern. If the rebels do take over the government, they could end up being more ruthless and brutal than Qaddafi.
To support these rebels knowing so little about their motives, history and affiliations could be embarrassing and catastrophic. If this is the reason Obama is in Libya, then why haven’t we intervened in the Sudan where tens of thousands of men, women and children have been brutally slaughtered like domesticated cattle? Or Zimbabwe where ethnic cleansing has taken the lives of potentially 100,000 people or more? Or what about North Korea where obesity is non-existent in the general population because Kim Jung Il would rather spend the countries stash on porn and shrimp than feed his people? I’m sure no one wants to see innocent people slaughtered and so I’m quite sure there would be a fair amount of support from Congress and the People to stop such madness. However, to start enforcing this new policy in Libya where the body count is far less than other places in the world seems odd at best. I know this is the reason Obama says we are in Libya, but it doesn’t add up. And to be quite honest, I just don’t trust the man based on his past history.
Then there’s my idea that Obama was pressured into Libyan shenanigans by NATO. Why you ask? Europe receives about 85% of the Libyan oil exports, and seeing how most of that continent is already in economic turmoil, a disruption in the oil supply may only further sink the European Union into an economic meltdown. NATO without the help of the United States, doesn’t have enough military might to tackle a country as big as Libya, at least not without suffering heavy losses. With the exception of Great Britain, none of the European countries have much of a stomach for war anyhow, especially France. But in this case France of all people is leading the war! I mean, what the heck?! NATO heavily relies on the United States for most of their big military operations. This may be the reason why Obama was coaxed into launching 119 cruise missiles (at $600,000 a pop) from the onset and is now looking to turn over operations to NATO, specifically the French. Another way of putting it is, the hard part is done.
This theory seems to hold a bit more weight than the other theories mentioned above. To dig a little deeper, let’s see where the oil goes. France receives about 16% of its total oil from Libya, Italy at 22%, Spain at 12%, UK at 9%, Greece at 15%, Portugal 11%, Austria 21%, Ireland 23%, Germany at 8%. These numbers are immenselysignificant. If Libya were to sink into civil war, as it appeared it was about to do, oil supply disruptions would certainly be a casualty of war. Can you image what would happen in the United States if we took a 20% drop in our oil supply? Prices for just about everything would be higher than Charlie Sheen in an Esperanza cocaine distribution facility. The same is true in Europe. The only thing that doesn’t jive with this theory is Obama saying Qaddafi must go. Why would Qaddafi have to go if political ties between Libya and the United States have been fairly good over the past decade? Why all of a sudden?
Of all the excuses Obama has at his disposal, I think the humanitarian effort is a red herring. Since when has NATO or France been involved militarily to end a humanitarian crisis? I say it’s a red herring because people are sympathetic to human rights violations, and a war over humanitarian efforts is far more palatable and easier to sell than a war over oil. I also think this is why Obama did not seek congressional approval prior to attacking Libya. He knew he wouldn’t get approval for his oil fueled war, even from his left-wing base as is evident by Senator Dennis Kucinich (uber-liberal) who is now trying to pass legislation to defund Obama’s little war.
Heck, even George W. Bush got congressional approval before invading Iraq and Afghanistan. I have a feeling this is going to hurt Obama politically once the truth comes out, especially when he campaigned on ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and boosting Muslim relations.
Bad move Obama. Bad move.