I'm an avid supporter of Barack Obama. In fact, I have often claimed that he thinks in many ways the same way that I do. I have disagreed with him before. But never as much as I do now. This whole Libya thing - I'm sorry. I'm just not buying it.
I've spoken to enough people to know that whatever one thinks about what is going on in the middle East, and Libya in particular, is simply a matter of opinion. As always, opinions are always a factor of our principals, our experiences and in many ways our fears. So those are sometimes hard to change. But I believe that they should always be heard, understood, appreciated and the differences noted, respectfully. And for that reason, I don't want to disagree with the Libya bombings on grounds of morality and the role of the U.S. to a purported looming massacre in the hands of colonel Gadhafi.
Let me disagree on grounds of "what the hell are you doing?" At the current moment,there is a general consensus, even amongst the talking heads that generally agree with Obama, that this mission is fuzzy at best. Up to this moment, Obama has been hard pressed to explain himself clearly to anyone. If I, a real loyal who trusts the decision making process of this president, am having a really tough time with this one, I think we have a problem.
First and foremost, how can one prove that Libya is not dealing with a civil uprising? Despite all the protests we've seen on TV, and our general acknowledgement that Gadhafi makes us uncomfortable, to say the least, there is no denying that there is an obvious availability of Gadhafi supporters. If that were not the case, he would have been ousted by now. So who is the U.N or the U.S to take sides in this affair? if we're claiming democracy, how do we pick sides and still maintain its integrity? Because, let's be honest, the U.N. mandate allows for the arming of the rebels. That is taking sides.
Additionally, Barack committed funds to this mission. At the current time, the waging war against him from the republicans has to do with the deficit and spending. So why would he not engage congress first? I think what really ticks me off is that Barack has changed the tone again. Before all this, the Union collective bargaining war had just simply turned everyone towards democrats and Barack Obama. And what a momentum there was. So I ask, what the hell is this, that it was worth that loss?
Maybe, Barack thought this would help him look less timid. Look like a president who can make war decisions towards going to war. But the problem with this is that it alienates his voting base. That base tends to be more peace, less war. More resolutions outside of gun battles. And most importantly, more process oriented. The one thing that is definitely missing here - an understood mission and process to follow.
And while I agree by all means, stop a massacre before it happens, whenever a decision is made to "assist" an oil rich country, while the Congo and Sudan continue to bleed out, I am simply not buying that reason. It's BS, and I am calling it out. I just hate that I am calling under Obama's administration.
It's possible that I just disagree with Western intervention in majority of cases, and maybe that's why I disagree with this. But I think I especially don't believe in the "uproar" that was/is in the middle east as a very real thing. Except that it is real and happening. I'm of the school of thought that this is media driven, and Ii could put it this way, Japan, its earthquake, Tsunami and nuclear issues came a little too late to avert Obama's having to make a decision here. I am convinced that these revolutions have been kept alive by consistent attention from the western media. And that in itself would be valid if I believed the interest was genuine. I don't. I think the interest is only commercial to the media industry. So let's hope Barack knows better than I do what it is he is doing and what the end results will be. Because personally, at the current time, I believe strongly he's just responded to a product of media hype that may have had nothing to do with anything - in the long run.