As we move farther into what is becoming President Obama's not war quagmire in Libya, more questions are being raised than President Obama can answer.
Why the delay in acting strong and decisive:
In the beginning when Qaddafi opposition forces were knocking at the doorstep of Tripoli and Americans were sitting on a ferry trying to get out, why did President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton show weakness by stating they did not want to speak out due to fear of Americans being taken hostage.
What if President Obama had placed American Carriers off the coast of Tripoli and warned Qaddafi if any harm came to any American or if any Americans were taken hostage, his regime would be destroyed. Would this have emboldened the opposition and devastated Qaddafi supporters?
Why did President Obama lie to America:
Why did President Obama find it necessary to wait for the United Nations to pass a resolution instead of going to Congress and stating his case for a No Fly Zone? He signed the secret Executive order of 'Findings' before he had United Nation's authorization to attack Libyan forces.
Why did he find it necessary to allow the 'leak' of his signing the executive order allowing CIA to help the opposition in Libya? There are millions of American veterans that have served in the U. S. and are keenly aware of how military missions are conducted. To them having CIA or Special Operations people on the ground in Libya to call in airstrikes and direct laser guided bombs onto targets came as no big surprise. It was only after news started coming out that British Special Forces were on the ground that the leaks about the CIA being on the ground came out. By allowing theses so-called leaks to come out was President Obama trying to calm Congress and America, after all he did flatly say No Boots On The Ground in Libya. Evidently President Obama believes it's not a lie if it comes from the White House instead of from the newsroom.
Why was President Obama in such a hurry to turn the mission over to NATO:
Before the ink had dried on the UN resolution we were bombing Libya and President Obama announced this would only take days not weeks. In the mean time his waiting allowed Qaddafi to regroup his military and force the oppostion back to Benghazi. The strikes on Qaddafi military units around Benghazi were successful and President Obama immediately pushed for NATO to take over. Now that NATO, still under an American Commander, has taken over the Qaddafi oppostion is once again in full retreat. Stalemate?
What's the end game and was it always about oil:
Word is starting to come out that the opposition forces are seeking a ceasefire in Libya. Are they setting up the conditions for a possible resolution of the fighting in Libya? If so are they looking at a plan similar to plans of the past like Korea and Vietnam. Will it be a Truce dividing Libya into East and West with governments on each side and United Nations 'Peacekeepers' in the middle?
Under this scenario the East would have control of all of Libya's oil fields and Britain, Italy and France would benefit. Eventually the Qaddafi regime would be toppled since the western Libyan economy would be crippled. Sounds very similar to then Senator Biden's idea in Iraq.
If this happens then nothing that President Obama has said in the past can be believed. The truth will be that it was never about a humanitarian crisis but always about oil for France and Britain.
Technorati Tags:united nations, nato, obama, france, oil, libya, cnn, news, msnbc, fnc
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
Ronnie - Very good analysis. Not many are aware that there are two dominant tribes in Libya, one in the east, (Bengazi), and one in the west. Tribal politics and hegomony over the oil fields are one motive in the 'not war,' which is another waste of tax payer monies by the 'not' President....Just my opinion....William McCullough
ReplyDelete