Thursday, March 28, 2024

President Barack Obama – Regime change: Seeking the politically correct context…

April 2, 2011 by  
Filed under News, Opinion, Politics, Weekly Columns

Like
Like Love Haha Wow Sad Angry

(ThyBlackMan.com) In attacking Libya, the UN, the US and their western allies are stomping on a paper thin principle, made more porous by their own inaction against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

The Bush doctrine on regime change in Iraq was bad, therefore had no UN mandate, so we were made to understand starting in 2003, and throughout the period of the occupation.

But President Obama, who was totally opposed to the Iraq war had this to say about Libya: “The goal of the United Nations-sanctioned military action in Libya is to protect citizens, not regime change — but the goal of U.S. policy is that Muammar Gadhafi “has to go.”

The difference between Obama’s position at this point, and Bush’s in 2003 against Saddam Hussein, can be discerned as double standard. The only question is why?

I curse myself for seeming to defend Gaddafi. But what I am really seeking is the first principle in geo-political governance: If the UN is not for regime  change in Libya then why is Obama, in support of the same UN mandate, seeking to remove Gaddafi?

You will recall that the UN Security Council did not support George Bush on Iraq in 2003. Yet the whole world knew that Saddam was more brutal on his citizens than any despot of this era.

The UN also conveniently forgot that the 2003 conflict was a continuation of the Gulf War of 1991, a consequence of Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait and his refusal to destroy or reveal the whereabouts of his WMDs.

Obama, in his 2008 presidential campaign, based his opposition to the Iraq war on a bumper sticker slogan, “Saddam did not attack the US on 9/11.”

Interestingly, Gaddafi didn’t either – neither did he conceal his WMDs or took over a neighboring country, but here we go, the bombs are already falling on Libya.

Ironically, Obama had this to say: “The “international mandate” is focused on “the humanitarian threat posed by Col. Gadhafi to his people.”

Bush said almost the same about Saddam in 2003 and it meant nothing, as a matter of principle, to Obama and his crew then.

So now we are at a post Bush era.  Are we then supposed to believe that, besides Libya, there are no humanitarian threats posed by rulers anywhere? Of course, not in North Korea or Sudan. Darfur, we must assume, is peaceful. Somalia has rebounded to normalcy. Zimbabwe is now Obama’s version of paradise.

And the Ivory Coast, yes the Ivory Coast, the once beloved colony of the French, has already been pulled back from the brink of civil war, as seen fit by French supervision.

The reality is Ivory Coast is burning and about to explode.  Humanitarian concerns do not apply there. The citizens are just a bunch of Africans!  Just ask the French since for them genocide did not apply to the slaughter in Rwanda either.

The French, major obstacle to the Bush doctrine in Iraq, are now leading the EU charge against Libya. Their planes were first to fly in the “no fly” zone protection areas over Libya.

The irony is boundless. There was a declaration of war by US Congress against Iraq before Bush came and carried that mandate to its logical conclusion, but Obama said he was wrong.

Obama’s administration is following the lead of the UN while there is not yet a US Congressional support for war against Libya. But Obama is already at full throttle against the weaker Gaddafi.

The stronger Saddam was showering mustard gas on his people on a scale vastly horrendous than any act seen in Libya to date before the UN/US intervention.

Yet the humanitarian label did not apply to Bush. Today, Obama and the UN have humanitarian reasons for war against Gaddafi when they couldn’t find one against Saddam.

When principles are damaged on such grand scale by a body like the UN and its western allies the world suffers.  Are we really surprised by the unrest in the rest of the world?

Obama has promised a quick act on Libya and “the United States will soon hand the responsibility over to allies who will maintain a no-fly zone over Libya,” he said.

Republicans in the US are already asking questions: “What happens after Qaddafi….Who will be in charge then, and who pays for this all?” The Wall Street Journal reported.

Bush broke the pot in Iraq and owned the re-construction cost to the delight of the anti-Bush crowd. The UN and the western allies must be held accountable for what may happen in Libya.

Obama, in opting for a quick withdrawal of US forces, betrayed many sentiments: His hurry to rid himself of a political hot cake before 2012 and his audacity for action against a weaker foe. Would he have made the same decision against the much stronger Saddam Hussein?

The French, who have no stomach for lengthy wars will presumably, take charge of the war effort after Obama’s departure.

They are eagerly waiting for a crack against an obviously weak military nation so as to reclaim lost heroism in wars and interventions past: WWII, the Suez, Vietnam, Algiers and Rwanda.

No matter, the invasion of Libya will come to pass. The French will depart quicker than Obama. Hopefully, Libya will not be another Afghanistan or Somalia.

What remains is the UN charter that forbids interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. Will it become another confused point as all else with the UN?

Clearly, if the UN had supported the forceful removal of Saddam, it would have established the first principle for a concerted action against despots like Gaddafi. It didn’t.

Had it done so, Gaddafi could probably have gotten the message quicker as he did with his voluntary WMD surrender programme the minute the bombs started falling on Iraq.

Written by E. Ablorh-Odjidja


Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!