(As in significant points, not overall significance.) It is a positive thing that the No-Fly zone has been implemented. It is a negative that it took so long and has exposed lies and a lack of leadership in our political spectrum. For a month, the US Administration dithered saying it wouldn't be so simple to institute the move. During that month, Qaddaffi was able to turn the rebels back from the gates of Tripoli to their base in Benghazi. The no-fly zone should have been implemented when Qaddafi was shooting protestors from his aircraft.
The French and the Brits have led in the political spectrum, and they have joined together behind the US in the military operations. The Arab League claimed to support the concept, until it was implemented, because by the time it was implemented, it took more than just taking out Libyan aircraft to get the field of battle level again. Had it been implemented when it should have, it could have been a true no-fly zone, instead of what has been implemented: an air support campaign for the rebels.
A level playing field on the battlefield means the war lasts longer and that more people die. When this started, the rebels had the initiative and the popular support. Qaddaffi had the munitions, the airpower, and the armored vehicles. If this devolves into two forces of equal capabilities, many more will die over a longer period of time, than if overwhelming force was used quickly and completely.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the No-Fly Zone is where the POTUS received authority for it. He didn't even consult Congress, much less receive authorization to commit acts of war against a sovereign nation. He submitted to the United Nations, from the beginning stating that the move would need their approval. Combined, this submission to the UN and ignoring the Constitutional Authority (Congress) for the acts of war, is very detrimental to the Constitution and US sovereignity.
Already, the POTUS has cold feet. He's already trying to back out of the leadership that he accepted on behalf of the Nation. Does this come from the backlash of his supporters, Louis Farrakhan and Rev Wright? Or is he simply not a leader.
Leaders lead. They don't ask for a commission to decide on every issue that crosses their desk. They don't take a poll to find out what they should do. Leaders look at the known facts, decide on the best course of action, and then convince the commissions and voters to support that course of action as best.
The Executive of the United States, presides over the government. It is his job to convince Congress to go to war, as his predecessor did with Iraq and Afghanistan. It is his job to explain to the American people why that decision was necessary, as his predecessor also failed to do. It is not his job to follow the dictates of the UN, though he has the power to block the dictates of the UN. It is his job to give the military the tools to do the job asked of them, which he actively opposed during his predecessor's term. It is his job to preside and decide the actions of the United States, as approved by Congress, not the UN.
When it comes to politics, the right thing is often done for the wrong reasons and the wrong thing is often done for the right reasons. Often, the wrong thing is pushed through under the mantra that "something has to be done" while the right thing is delayed until it is a crisis situation. Too often things, right and wrong, are done in the wrong way. This is a case where the right thing was done with the wrong means for the wrong reasons, too late to be as effective as it should have been.
Some will tell you that things can't be any worse in Libya, that the new government can't be worse than the last. Qaddafi has always been an odd duck, but he is not the worst possible dictator. Much of his bluster was tempered by economic and political necessities. He voluntarily gave up his nuclear program when he saw it was a liability, under the Bush Administration. US and British oil companies and workers have long been a part of his economic plan.
What could be worse? An Islamist Regime, like Iran. A long term civil war, like Liberia was. A government more hostile to the United States would be worse. It's popular to say that there should be no war for oil, but already the pressure on oil supply has increased the prices to the point that the world is feeling economic pressures. If oil prices stay at these levels, or increase, people will starve from the resulting inflation and unemployment that comes with it.
The cost of oil effects the prices of food and clothing. Already we're expecting clothing prices this year to be 300% of what they were last year, and that was before the cost of transporting cotton and clothing was driven up with the cost of oil. The problem with inflation is that it effects prices before it effects wages.
No war for oil? Wars should not be fought to steal oil, but to not keep the flow of oil steady is to condemn the poor to freezing and starvation. Of course, had we opened the oil spigots in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico last year, the price of oil today would have been driven up to $50/barrel, not $100+. But don't worry, Cuba is authorizing drilling in the same places this administration won't. It'll cost companies less to do drill under Cuban authorization, because they won't require the same safety enforcement, and the profits will go to a regime that oppresses its people. And it won't effect the price of oil as much, because it'll produce less.
Stumble It!
