The events involving Libya during the past couple of weeks have posed a question that I think would be difficult to answer. Is a president actually in command, or is he mostly a figure-head with decisions being made by a number of other individuals? This certainly seems to be the case when considering the actions of the United States Government during the past few months. When comparing the statements of President Obama before he was elected president with his actions now, the President does not seem to be the same person now.
When we were first advised about the involvement of the United States in the military campaign against Libya, we were told that the role of the U.S. would be to provide intelligence and surveillance. Direct military actions were supposed to be the responsibility of other countries, who are closer to that region. Apparently, what we were first told was false.
It doesn’t take much effort to find humanitarian crises in several countries with a simple search of the Internet using your favorite search engine. Civilians have been killed in Bahrain, Syria, Yemen, Myanmar (or Burma), Somalia, the Congo, and the list goes on. What made President Obama decide that Libya should be attacked?
We were initially told that there was a broad coalition of countries, who supported this action against Libya, including the Arab League of Nations. The approval of the Arab League of Nations was supposed to be of great importance, since Libya is an Arab country. Now the Arab League is protesting the western-led attacks on Libya because civilians are being killed. Wasn’t the purpose of our military action to stop the killing of civilians?
I wonder how many people in this country really appreciate the decline of governmental services in this country and the laying off of teachers, fire fighters, police officers while we are spending money we don’t have, attacking Libya? I, for one, do not.