This article is inspired by…
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
So, over the past 3 years or so, many Democrats have expressed their dissatisfaction with the Obama presidency. Some have complained that Obama is too timid, he doesn’t fight for liberal values enough, he’s too willing to listen to the “Rethuglicans” and is too in love with the magical idea of bipartisanship. ‘This is not the “change” we voted for’ reads the usual refrain. The most obvious example cited is usually the Health-Care War of 2009/10 – ironically a law which achieved between 85-90% of what Obama campaigned on and achieved through no republican vote in the Senate.
In fact when viewed from a distance — let’s say here in the UK — Obama couldn’t be more different from the previous President Bush, or Bill Clinton for that matter – a point evidenced by his decision to intervene in Libya.
As much as I love commentating on politics and double guessing political leaders’ thoughts and decisions, I readily accept that the job they do is tough. I wouldn’t want to be in Prime Minister David Cameron or President Obama’s shoes when matters of war and peace are on the table. I’m not brave enough to look in the eyes of dead soldiers’ loved ones and try to explain how their loved one died. I also have many sympathies with those who argue that war, in whatever guise is never necessary. I sympathize, but disagree.
The case of western intervention in Libya is a fascinating for those who detest military action but feel it’s necessary. I was only 8 when the atrocities in Rwanda happened, I didn’t see the pictures until much later on in life, but a question has always plagued me? Why didn’t anyone do anything about it?
I remember being 13 years old and literally being sick at the pictures, news reports and stories about the genocide. Clinton since expressed his regret in not doing anything about the atrocities but… how could you not do anything? The UN has the means to save hundreds and thousands of lives, but major countries decided individual vital interests were not threatened by this event.
You can see where I am going with this, right? This is where I feel Libya is different from Iraq. Yes they are both Islamic countries, yes Saddam committed mass murder of his own populous, but the reasons given for going into Iraq were ones of pure individualistic interests, not humanitarian. Saddam Hussein, to my knowledge did not announce the coming massacre of his people, Gaddafi did (although he is disputing this due to miss-translation of his words). The WMD’s here are the images of thousands of dead Libyan civilians emphasized by the explicit intent on the part of Gaddafi to carry out deadly retribution against those against him – for me a far more convincing rational than given by George Bush Jr.
Also, this action was called for not by the allied forces alone but by Arab League (again, some disputing whether what they called for is what they received) and the people in Libya –No American grand-standing, no “we are doing this because we are bigger and stronger than you” – this was multi-lateral effort. Try arguing the same for the Iraq war.
Many are worried that such actions have set a precedent for intervening in numerous other cases – I for one feel that such a precedent set is a good thing. Perversely, I feel if you can’t go to war to save lives, when do you go to war? Yes Libya is a Quagmire, but its one worth getting into.
It has always been said that one of the greatest strengths of America as a country is its unique ability to learn from the mistakes on its part. Obama’s decision to intervene in Iraq is proving that sentiment right.
NOTE: Due to a short technical glitch, when this first went on it had the wrong byline. This was corrected within a minute. We regret the error.
