On Monday March 28, 2011 President Obama addressed the Nation on Primetime television on his Libya involvement. This comes nine days after the missile attacks on Col Muammar al-Gaddafi’s regime by the U.S. Military, France and the UK.
President Obama’s speech, presented as compassionate, left many questions, concerns, and contradictions.
Many key issues the President addressed are not fully answered; contradict the ‘UN Security Council resolution 1973’ (1) published by the United Nations Press center under: ‘SC/10200’ (2), as well as the ‘Geneva Convention from 1949’ (3).
Questions, such as the exegesis of the UN Resolution, continued involvement of the United States, the actual “American Interests” in that region, and the role of Al Qaeda in that conflict.
Not to forget the Constitutional Aspect of divided power and when the President is authorized to interfere in an armed conflict.
There is one thing I agree with the president on and that is that Muammar al-Gaddafi is a dictator, a terrorist, and needs to be removed. But let’s not forget who made Col. Gaddafi respectable in the world.
It was not the United States, but rather the European Union and the United Nations who actually lobbied to provide the very same dictator a seat on the UN Humans rights council.
The very same EU and UN who made Billions of Dollars profit from doing business with this dictator, while the pre-Obama U.S.A. had a ban on this country. And these countries now want Gaddafi to be removed and the United States should do the dirty work.
So the key question to be answered is who is President Obama really serving in this conflict?
The Key issues in a nutshell:
- President Obama declared that he has deployed American Forces after consulting the bipartisan Leadership of Congress.
But the truth of the Matter is that Congressman Boehner, speaker of the House, said on Sunday March 20, 2011 the President better explain what America’s role” is in the Libya offensive before further military action is taken, Politico.com reports (4).
Even his own partisan friends in the House were so surprised that the word impeachment was mentioned by VP Joe Biden and 8 other Democrats (5).
If Obama had really consulted bipartisan Leadership as he claimed in his speech, would the Speaker of the house and the Vice President not have been fully informed and why did the VP talk about impeachment over this action?
- President Obama points out over and over that the American involvement was to protect innocent Civilians, and painted a horrific picture of massacres and genocide.
But here is the thing. The Geneva Convention from 1949 (3) specifically spells out who is protected under their Charta and considered a “Civilian” (Part I, Article 3, (1) In case of conflict of not of an international character…persons taking NO active part in hostilities).
Therefore, armed Rebels fighting the current government in hostile actions are not to be considered Innocent Civilians and Obama’s proud announcement of destroying Tanks moving towards the rebels is NOT protecting civilians under the Geneva Convention, but rather supporting rebel forces.
And what about the civilians still committed to Gaddafi? Think about the Dictator what you want – the women and children still believing in him are still Civilians, are they not protected by the Geneva Convention?
- President Obama mentions several times how he is determined to fight Al Qaeda and he keeps mentioning Iraq.
Either the President is so badly informed or he purposely withholds vital information from the American people.
Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the leader of the Libyan rebels has confirmed and admitted in an interview with the UK Telegraph (6) on March 25, 2011 that jihadists who fought allied troops in Iraq are now on the front against Gaddafi. Mr. Hasidi himself is a member of Al Qaeda and fought against the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Washington Times on March 30, 2011 confirms that Jihadists join Libyan Rebel Forces (9).
Al Qaeda in Maghreb, the African side arm of Al Qaeda, has always been a strong force in that area. They usually move in the no-man’s land between Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt.
To finance their Terror attacks, primarily against the United States, they kidnap preferred European Tourists during a desert trip and demand ransom which is usually paid through Saif al-Islam Gaddafi’s Charity foundation. Another financial source for Al Qaeda in Maghreb is providing Terror camps (7).
- If President Obama is so determined to fight Al Qaeda “wherever they are found”, as he claimed in his speech on Monday why did he announce on Tuesday March 29, 2011 that he does not rule out arming Libyan Rebels (8)?
President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have not ruled out supporting Rebels with arms.
NATO General Secretary ‘Anders Fogh Rasmussen’ already rejected the idea with good reason.
Not only would this practically arm Al Qaeda Terrorists, but in fact this would violate the ‘UN Security Council resolution 1973’ (1).
Chapter 13 “Enforcement of Arms Embargo” does not specify between Rebel forces and Regular Government Forces. The mandate say’s clear to enforce an Arms embargo against the country.
Even if rebel forces prevail and overthrow Gaddafi, it is up to the United Nations first to remove the Arms embargo before any country can provide lethal weapons.
In addition, arming Rebels against the Government would provide a clear advantage over the Government forces and therefore be a direct interference in an inner conflict of a sovereign state, also known as civil War. And let’s be honest this conflict already is a civil war. And this is clearly not in the UN Mandate.
The mandate speaks exclusively about “providing a No-Fly Zone in order to protect Civilians” and rules out a direct interference.
- President Obama did not point out clearly the involvement of ground troops.
As a matter of fact, in several parts of his speech, the president mentioned so called “Search and seizure” as well as “Search and Rescue” operations.
Rescue who, who does the president want to rescue; all Americans are out of the country. Or does the president actually mean “Search and Destroy” missions?
This would make a lot more sense since the President has signed a “secret presidential finding authorizing covert operations in Libya” as U.S. officials confirmed to Fox News on March 31st 2011, only three days after the president announced there will be no ground troops in Libya (10).
There are only two facts that are undisputable and that is 1) Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi needs to go and 2) the conflict in Libya is a internal domestic Conflict also called ‘Civil War”.
No matter how compassionate or whiningly Obama presents the situation a military support is a clear interference in a inner conflict, arming rebels is a dangerous adventure because it also means for a fact arming Al Qaeda.
Again Gaddafi needs to go, but the way to get there is diplomacy and not military action.
If military action is really the answer why don’t we get involved against Ahmedinejad, who poses a way larger threat to the United States and our ally, Israel?
6) UK Telegraph
10) Fox News