 "Photo: Erin Logan")
For a Nobel Peace Prize winner, Barack Obama sure has killed a lot of people. The president has sent troops to Afghanistan, launched drone strikes in Pakistan, and actively maintained the occupation of Iraq he promised to end.
Obama's endless, aimless wars have cost hundreds of American lives and obliterated thousands of civilians. His obscene military budget, the largest since Word War II, has left beleaguered taxpayers with a debt greater than every other president in history combined.
Now, as the US spends upwards of $1 billion fighting Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya, Obama has become the first Nobel Peace Prize winner to fire cruise missiles. Why did he win that prize again?
In his defense, Obama actually told us that he believed in launching unprovoked wars as he was accepting the peace prize. Apparently the Nobel Committee didn't have a problem with that. I guess if you worship someone enough to give them a prize for no reason, you'll overlook anything.
The US should not be in Libya. The job of American soldiers is to protect America, not needlessly risk their lives babysitting the entire world. Resolving conflicts on the other side of the planet is not the legal responsibility of American taxpayers. Odyssey Dawn, an unnecessary police action against a nation that posed no threat to the United States, is both unconstitutional and an impeachable offense.
Don't take it from me; ask the Obama-Biden ticket. In a Dec. 20, 2007, interview with the Boston Globe, Obama, a constitutional scholar, explained that "the president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
Appearing on MSNBC Dec. 3, 2007, Joe Biden said "The President has no constitutional authority to take this nation to war against a country of 70 million people unless we're attacked, or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. If he does, I would move to impeach him."
Despite Obama's promise that "We are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal, specifically, the protection of civilians in Libya," missile attacks have been directed at Tripoli and Qaddafi's compound, according to a March 20 CNN article. Odyssey Dawn doesn't stop at merely enforcing a "no-fly zone." The US has already attacked so many ground targets in Libya that Arab League chief Amr Moussa has accused America of the "bombardment of civilians," according to a March 21 Arab News article.
Although the administration has painted the operation as an international effort, the US has fired most of the cruise missiles that have hit Libya. Germany, Brazil, Russia, India, and China have all opted not to take part in the attack. In a March 19 CNN interview, Vice Admiral William Gortney referred to "Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from both U.S. and British ships and submarines" before later admitting that only "one British submarine" had helped with his efforts. If history is any indicator, when a war is sold to the public as an international effort, we can expect America to end up bearing the brunt of the burden.
Einstein said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." After watching pointless interventions fail and backfire from Vietnam to Iraq, it should be apparent that military action in Libya is insane. How many countries do we have to needlessly invade before we realize that doing so does nothing more than generate hatred and recruit terrorists?
In the 1930s, American civilians who were passionate about the Spanish Civil War volunteered to travel to Spain and fight, calling themselves the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. Today, proponents of intervention in Libya would rather send someone else's son or daughter to die while they watch it on MSNBC.
If the fight against Qaddafi is important to you, do something about it yourself rather than expending the men and women who've volunteered to protect you. At the very least, donate your own money instead of expecting the rest of the country to pay for it. If, on the other hand, you continue to support Obama unconditionally, please take that peace sign bumper sticker off your car.
is a member of the 
11 comments Log in to Comment
This might piss a lot of Americans off at China, but it���s not going to provide much incentive for other Americans to join my anti-Chinese terrorist group and conduct attacks in China. At the very least, it���s going to provide way less incentive to do this than if China drops bombs on us or Chinese soldiers are walking up and down American streets.-Fourth paragraph from the bottom. Good for the French ��� recon isn���t cheap. Unless of course you compare it to cruise missiles, the vast majority of which have been fired by the US.
Why didn���t Britain send more than one submarine? If France is so eager to take charge, why don���t they send a few?Anonymous: Obama pushed to maintain the wars and then started another one. He isn���t slowly moving us further away from Bush - he���s taking us further in Bush���s direction. Put policy ahead of personality.
���verb (used with object)
1. to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent: Germany invaded Poland in 1939.
2. to enter like an enemy: Locusts invaded the fields. Did the Japanese not "invade" our airspace when they attacked Pearl Harbor? Would you have prefered "enter militarily?""The backing of other nations" is a joke. The article evidences this - the burden is now on you to demonstrate otherwise. Iraq was supposed to be an "international effort" and look how that turned out.The job of the military includes intervention in irrelevant conflicts? According to who? George Washington said ���I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation had a right to inter-meddle in the internal concerns of another; and that, if this country could, consistent with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace���.
-Yes, the majority of the military action is by our hand but that's the way it usually is. We are the tip of the spear. However that does not discount the backing of other nations. They are involved just as much as we are. So stop making this out to be a full on charge by the U.S.-"If the fight against Qaddafi is important to you, do something about it yourself rather than expending the men and women who've volunteered to protect you." The U.S. military's job is not to protect the president. It is the job of the Secret Service to do that. The job of the military is to engage in war and military conflict either offensively or defensively. Just thought I should clear that up.
You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now