Now that we know President Obama has authorized covert CIA action in Libya, and did so well before obtaining UN or Arab League backing for our intervention, the case for war in Libya grows even dimmer. This is not and was not a “humanitarian” intervention. It is regime change. It is Iraq II, when Iraq I is still going on.
What the administration seems to be doing goes far beyond the U.N. resolution. What the President is telling the people is incomplete at best and disingenuous at worse. It puts the U.S. in the position of once again attempting to violently overthrow a Middle Eastern country and threatens to destroy the Arab Spring.
And still not a peep from Congress. Are we at war or not? Are we pushing regime change or not? Are there boots on the ground or not?
This approach to military affairs is precisely what I reject, and what Obama campaigned against. I leave you with words from Andrew Sullivan, which sum up my point:
To say that this is a betrayal of his candidacy and his supporters would be an understatement. It makes George Bush’s request for a vote from Congress before committing the US to war in Iraq look like a model of democratic accountability. How dare this president commit this country to an open-ended involvement in a foreign country’s civil war – in secret, with no real public debate and then presented as a fait accompli. The kind of trust a president needs – especially when entering a long, open-ended exercize of war and nation-building in a chaotic failed state – can be destroyed by this kind of flim-flam. And what on earth are we doing even contemplating such a scenario?
This is not the change I believed in.