Libya: To What End?
When the US invaded Iraq in 2003, it do so with the clear intent of bringing its enemy—Saddam’s regime—to an unconditional surrender. That was the objective. Despite what happened after that objective was achieved, we went in with a clear and measurable purpose.
The motivating reason for our foray into Iraq was also clear. We believed at the time that Saddam Hussein’s possession of – and desire for more – weapons of mass destruction posed an imminent threat to US interests and citizens. We also believed that attempts to reach a peaceful resolution were exhausted and that failure to act immediately would make future actions more lethal.
I have no qualms with any of those actions, although I did end up criticizing the Bush administration’s handling of the longer occupation.
With troops in harm’s way, I will go no further, now, than to say that I believe the action in Libya sets two bad precedents:
1. The United Nations is operating inside a country, against a UN-recognized sovereign, to change a government’s domestic policy.
2. The President took military action against another country without consulting Congress and with no pretense of justification under the War Powers Act. Even Obama’s supporter Andrew Sullivan admits as much.
On St. Louis Tea Party Coalition, I posed five questions for the President regarding the Libyan offensive. As the father of an F-18 fighter technician, I hope the President will answer those questions, not to me, but to the nation and to the world.