Bush and Obama - Maybe it Was and Is Only About Middle East Oil

I found it interesting yesterday when a cluster of articles about the Middle East all appeared within two pages of the St. Petersburg Times. Consider what is going on in the following Middle Eastern and African countries and ask yourself if it does not all sound familiar:


- According to a Los Angeles Time report, the International Red Cross is reporting that over 1,000 civilians have been killed within a three day period last week in civil war fighting in the Ivory Coast. The Ivory Coast has two factions, representing two people who think they are the country's president, fighting each other since election results were made public last November. It is unknown what side did the civilian killings.


According to the article, there are between 800,000 and 1.1 million displaced people or refugees as a result of the fighting. Despite the civilian deaths, the UN, the Arab League, European countries, NATO, and the Obama administration have not sent in military assets to protect the civilian population like they did in Libya. I do not believe the Ivory Coast is a large source of crude oil.

- An Associated Press article reported that Syrian government forces and agents have tightened security in that country, cracking down on civilians rebelling against the dictatorship of President Assad. The acts including massive arrests of protesters, according to the article. The article also reported that over the past two weeks, 80 civilians had been killed protesting Assad's rule.

Despite the civilian deaths, the UN, the Arab League, European countries, NATO, and the Obama administration have not sent in military resources to protect the civilian population like they did in Libya. I do not believe that Syria is a large source of crude oi.

- The Associated Press reported that protesters in Oman were demanding an investigation into the the abuses by state security forces that may have resulted in at least one death and possibly more of protesters. The protests have been going on for the past six weeks as protesters are trying to shake off the rule of Sultan Qaboos bin Said.

Despite the civilian deaths, the UN, the Arab League, European countries, NATO, and the Obama adminstration have not sent in military assets to protect the civilian population like they did in Libya. I do not believe that Syria is a large source of crude oil.

- Although not mentioned in yesterday's papers, news reports today indicate that the Yemen dictator and his security forces are also cracking down on freedom protesters, killing at least fifteen protesters today in addition to the scores that his security forces have already killed.

Despite these ongoing civilian deaths, the UN, the Arab League, European countries, NATO, and the Obama administration have not sent in military assets to protect the civilians like they did in Libya. I do not believe that Yemen is a large source of crude oil.

- Similar behavior has happened in Bahrain and Egypt without any repercussions like there have been in Libya. Egyptian freedom protesters were beaten and killed by Mubarak's security people but no military intervention occurred to protect civlians. Egypt is not a major oil resource.

It makes you wonder, is this really the same situation Bush found himself in, that his invasion of Iraq was all about oil like many Democrats and those on the left claimed? Is this not the same situation, where the West only deploys military assets when a country, Libya, is a major source of oil, supplying about 2% of the world's crude oil and which supplies a much higher percentage to European countries? Could this be Obama channeling Bush again, military force is used only when oil supplies are in danger?

No need to bother with those silly people in the Ivory Coast with thousands dead and possibly a million people displaced. No need to bother with those silly people in Darfur, hundreds of thousands dead and millions more displaced. No need to to bother with those Yemen civilian deaths, no oil involved.

And it is not like the whole Libyan excursion is going well either:

- The New York Times reported this weekend in the St. Petersburg Times that NATO air strikes have mistakenly killed rebels fighting against Gadhafi forces. One of the problems with the air strikes is that Gadhafi's forces are now moving in smaller groups and using civilian vehicles, making them almost indistinguishable from rebel forces, effectively neutralizing a lot of NATO's firepower.

- The President promised that U.S.military forces would be out of most of the heavy lifting and fighting by this past weekend but that deadline was extended. Thus, more U.S. forces will be involved and more expenses rung up for at least a few more days in support of this ill-fated action.

- It appears that the President has still not explained all of the questions to Congress as he should since the war making powers in the Constitution reside in Congress, not in the Obama White House.

- I still cannot find any news reports that indicate any nation within the Arab League is providing substantial military, financial, or personnel support to this effort. This could be because they really do not need the oil like the rest of the world does so no big deal if they provide only token support.

- Now Iraq's Prime Minister is getting involved. In another news article yesterday, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki nailed the issue right on the head when he correctly called the military action against Gadhafi as "selective." By that he meant that foreign countries were singling out one oppressive government even though many other peaceful freedom protesters were being massacred in other countries. Specifically, "Whatever decision is made on Libya should be applied on any government that suppresses its people with iron and fire...The process should not be selective."

Well said, Mr.Prime Minister. This military action in Libya makes no sense from a logic perspective unless you include oil as a big part of the equation. What is going on in Libya is going on in many other African and Middle Eastern countries, common people finally getting a taste of freedom and wanting more, many times at the expense of their lives. Unfortunately, where you live determines whether the West steps in to protect you. Oil = protection, no oil = you are on your own.

I am not lobbying for the U.S. to intervene in all of these countries. We should not intervene in any of them, we do not have the resources, plans, patience, or the preparation to do so. You see what happened when we intervened in Iraq and Afghanistan, quagmires.

Obama's Libyan folly is no different from Bush, indicating yet again that the American political class, regardless of party, has no imagination, no creativity, no preparation, and no strategic plans in place to deal with the world's realities. This military action shows that the Obama foregin policy was just as illogical, ill planned, and unprepared as the Bush foreign policy was.

Yes, it is all about oil. And without a sane, integrated, and comprehensive energy plan in this country, we will continue to pay the high price for oil in foreign policy embarrassments, dead U.S. soldiers and wasted taxpayer wealth.

Don't believe me? Consider some recent observations by Michael Graetz of the LA Times:

"The spread of popular revolt in the Middle East to Libya has exacerbated a spike in oil prices and gasoline prices. In turn, this has stimulated widespread complaints about the lack of a coherent U.S. foreign policy toward despots in the region. The problem, however, lies in U.S. domestic policies. For 40 years, we have had no effective response to our addiction to oil. The United States has 4% of the world's population, but we consume 25% of the world's oil. Today, we import more than 50% of our oil, compared with 35% in 1973. The President recently described Libya's oppression of popular unrest as unacceptable. But so is our long-standing failure to address our inadequate domestic policies concerning oil."

Well said, Mr. Graetz




Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at http://www.loathemygovernment.com/. It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.


Please visit the following sites for freedom:

http://www.cato.org/
http://www.robertringer.com/
http://realpolichick.blogspot.com/
http://www.flipcongress2010.com/
http://www.reason.com/
http://www.repealamendmen.com/

The Mess That Is And Will Be Libya

I did not listen to President Obama's Libya speech last night. To be honest with you, I have come to a point in my level of respect for the man that is at an all time low. I just do not believe anything he says, either because he leaves out facts, is a hypocrite, refuses to man up to his responsibilities, or is an insult to the Constitution and the rule of law. Thus, many of you might feel that I have no right to criticize his speech regarding his Libyan actions.

However, I did do a lot of reading and follow up today of what he said from a variety of sources. If any of the following assertions on my part are incorrect, then please feel free to correct me, I am honest enough to admit my mistakes. With that said, here are my very serious problems with the President unilaterally, at least within this country, allowing our military forces and budget to be drawn into another Middle East hornets' nest:

- I cannot understand how the President was able to militarily attack a sovereign country without the approval and consent of Congress. This Libyan issue has been brewing for a long time, he had plenty of time to properly involve Congress in the action and planning. He did not. Rather than answer to the American people through Congress and the Constitution, he answered the call of the United Nations and the Arab League. This is not the way things are supposed to get done in this country. He answers to us, not foreign organizations.

Consider an excerpt from a New York Times column several years ago:

"Congress, the Constitution and War: The Limits on Presidential Power "

By ADAM COHEN - New York Times, 2007


But the Constitution also gives Congress an array of war powers, including the power to “declare war,” “raise and support armies” and “make rules concerning captures on land and water.” By “declare war,” the Constitution’s framers did not mean merely firing off a starting gun...In giving Congress the power to declare war, the Constitution gives it authority to make decisions about a war’s scope and duration.


The Founders, including James Madison, who is often called “the father of the Constitution,” fully expected Congress to use these powers to rein in the commander in chief. “The Constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it,” Madison cautioned. “It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature.”

Very well put, Mr. Cohen and Mr. Monroe. By vesting the question of war in Congress, as Monroe stated, it keeps the country's delicate balance of checks and balances in place. Congress authorizes war, funds war, and determines the scope and duration. None of this happened in this instance of attacking a foreign government. No matter how despicable the actions of this foreign government might be, there is a process to follow and Obama ignored it outright.

- Following up on Alan Cohen's article, he was writing to discredit the very similar actions of Bush and Cheney in Iraq. This is where the big hypocrisy comes in. If these words from the New York Times were appropriate to use against Bush, how are they not appropriate to use against Obama? Where is the moral outrage the liberal portion of the country expressed when Bush attacked Iraq? It appears to have been muted or no-existent as Obama attacks Libya, a country that even the high ranking members of the President's administration admits holds no military, security, or strategic value or threat to the United States.

In fact, you could make the point that since Sadaam Hussein had already killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, including the poison gassing to death of thousands of Kurds in just one day, Bush as as justified going into Iraq militarily as Obama has justified going into Libya to prevent the killing of the rebels. It was pretty clear that Hussein was in the daily business of killing his own people and would have killed many more if Bush had not attacked.

Let me be very clear. I was against the Bush move into Iraq from the very beginning and I am not trying to justify that action now. I am just pointing out that if military intervention in the Middle East is justified to prevent civilian massacres, as Obama has done to justify his Libya actions, then he and anyone else cannot condemn Bush on these grounds.

- Which brings us to another aspect of Obama's logic. If he intervened in Libya to prevent a massacre, why has he not intervened in Darfur, Sudan. According to most sources I have referenced, the Sudanese leader, Omar Al-Bashir, and his henchmen are responsible for over 300,000 deaths and the displacement of about 2.6 million civilians.

This is a humanitarian disaster far larger than Libya and is a disaster the political class and Obama have know about for years. Why has Obama not involved us in this situation, that appears very similar to the Libyan situation: madman ruler massacres his own people. Who gets to decide where the we intervene?

An editorial piece from the Christian Science Monitor tries to answer this question:

A Christian Science Monitor opinion piece echoes this idea, stating that the Obama Doctrine is bad foreign policy because it leaves the U.S. in an open-ended commitment in Libya, while confusing the standards for intervention in foreign countries.



“Under the Obama Doctrine, it appears that the U.S. is committed to putting troops in harm’s way and bearing the heaviest financial costs as long as the coalition of NATO and selected Arab states want U.S. troops,” the piece states. “Simply, by compelling an open-ended commitment under international control and limited tools to resolve the conflict, the Obama Doctrine and the Libyan campaign are not good foreign policy.”

- "Not good foreign policy," that sums it up pretty well. No one has any idea what our foreign policy is. When will the United States take similar action? The President of Yemen has had his snipers gun down dozens, if not hundreds, of protesters. How many does he have to kill before Obama unilaterally commits us to another military action.  Do thousands of Yemen civilians have to die, tens of thousands?

The leaders of Bahrain has killed dozens of their civilians. When does his government and country get subjected to U.S. military strikes? Syria has killed dozens of its civilians. When and what is their tipping point? How about Iran? Heck, while we are at it, China has been doing a pretty good job of suppressing freedom and has a horrible human rights record against its own civilians. When do we tell them enough is enough? The policy leaves these questions so open ended that it is no longer a policy or strategy, it is a reflex action.

- If Obama's Libya excursion is in fact a reflex action, then we could be in trouble. Remember Reagan's Middle east reflex action when he went and stationed U.S. ground troops in Lebanon for similar humanitarian reasons in the early 1980s? Hundreds of Marines were killed by one of the earliest Middle East suicide bombers that no one in the Reagan administration foresaw as a problem. The unforeseen problems to this reflex action in Libya are not likely to end much better.

- Apparently the President did not answer even basic questions last night in his report to the American public:

• How long is this likely to last?
• How much is this military action likely to cost?
• How much is the follow up humanitarian effort likely to cost and who will operate and pay for that?
• Does the President understand that many Americans are upset that he appears to be taking his marching orders from the United Nations and the Arab League and not the American system of government? How does he explain that perception or misperception?
• When will the Arab League, who reportedly asked for our intervention, start kicking in money, men, and materials?
• The President says this operation will be turned over to international control. What in the world does that really mean? Who is really in charge, who will be in danger, who will be paying for all of this, etc.
• How does the President explain the disconnect of saying that the military action was only to protect civilians but credible news reports indicate the military action is taking out Libyan infrastructure and military assets nowhere close to the rebels?
• And the biggest question of them all, if the rebels succeed, what are the likely consequences and what is a post Qaddafi regime likely to look like? Is it possible that the replacement government could be a hostile one?

None of these points say that from a humanitarian perspective, we should not have intervened. However, 1) the process was bad in that it did not adhere to over two hundred years of Constitutional processes, 2) with all of the unanswered questions, this does not look like a strong foreign policy, it looks like a knee jerk reaction, 3) the financials have not been thought through or shared, something that a government hemorrhaging billions of dollars a day now has to consider, 4) the hypocrisy of criticizing Bush for a similar action in Iraq, no matter how wrong it was, is overwhelming, and 5) the nebulous nature of when and why we would militarily intervene elsewhere confuses an already muddied and dynamic situation.

Bottom line: this is a crap shot of a military action and if history holds any clue to its outcome, these Libyan dice are loaded with unforeseen consequences, unforeseen expenses, and unforeseen mistakes.

P.S. While the American political class and government has been busy funding and executing this non-strategic and non-threatening Libyan action, the governments in China, India, South Korea, and dozens of other countries in the world have been going about the business of improving their economies to the detriment of our economy.



Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at http://www.loathemygovernment.com/. It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.


Please visit the following sites for freedom:

http://www.cato.org/
http://www.robertringer.com
http://realpolichick.blogspot.com
http://www.flipcongress2010.com/
http://www.reason.com/
http://www.repealamendment