Hey everybody, lefties like to blow up things and kill people, too! Seriously—Can we blame liberals for clinging to the Good Ship Socialism when their pacifist boy king does a 180-degree turn with a full back-flip, landing with an assault rifle in his hands, ready for action? It does not seem yet that Democrats will reject Barack’s startling metamorphosis in jumping into the Libyan fray faster than a robin pecking a stunned earthworm into paste.
The real issue in Barack joining the Libyan fray is not his tyrannical actions in not bothering to ask Congress. That has already been established. It is how to understand Obama and his beliefs so we might predict his future decisions. He has revealed himself without principle, a Postmodern man who believes principle is an anachronism. But has his Obama Doctrine of preemptive humanitarian war, on the fly, meant to aid any country in danger of suffering genocide, decipherable? That is the subject of this essay.
America’s intervention in Libya, called Odyssey Dawn, began after weeks of observing the civil uprising and Col. Moamar Gaddafi putting down the rebellion, upon which time Obama suddenly decided to intervene. He fired 112 Tomahawk cruise missiles to help cripple Gaddafi’s ability to kill his own people. NATO officially sponsored the military action, which started on March 19th, 2011, which included missiles, bombing, and creation of a no-fly-zone over certain areas in Libya.
Several facts stand out about the situation. First, it appears the previously anti-war Obama was nudged into joining by stronger players. Some even claim it was his female advisers who finally egged him into action. Perhaps Obama’s war will go down as made by men, but strong enough for a woman? Second, some accounts claim Barack did not want France’s Sarkozy to attack by himself and make him look weak. According to the Bangkok Post, the maneuver was led by France, acquiesced to by Obama, and is fundamentally disorganized:
The Western attacks began a week ago after a relatively brief flurry of diplomacy, largely led by France and President Nicolas Sarkozy. He worked to enlist British Prime Minister David Cameron and US President Barack Obama _ the latter a difficult convert but pressed hard to back a military option by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Mr Sarkozy stated correctly that the Gadhafi regime and military were killing civilians. France took the issue to the United Nations, where the Security Council voted 10-to-0 to call for military action to halt the attacks by Col Gaddafi’s forces.
Obama’s sudden foray into preemptive war caught many off guard. First, he did so without the blessing or counsel of congress. Second, the logic and vision of the action has not been offered to the public. Third, it is not clear how—in principle—this action differs in any important way from George W. Bush attacking Iraq.
Ancient Rome had a magnificent army and a straightforward public policy on war, according to such writers as Polybius, Livy and Julius Caesar himself. Rome until the end was hyper vigilant on its borders and made sure to exact revenge upon any group which attacked Romans, or whom had resisted their might. Graham Webster, in his The Roman Imperial Army explains how the first emperor, Caesar Augustus, understood the importance of having dominion of an area exclusively ruled by Rome, controlled via standing armies. This was achieved by way of conquest, and then by the establishment of roads, regular outposts and forts.
During the Republican period, warfare allowed the elimination of enemies, and the taking of plunder, according to Webster. During the Empire, this doctrine was widened into permanent occupation of enemy lands, and also the procuring of friendly states to act as a buffer between Rome and the barbarians. These buffers acted as crucial shields when enemies attacked.
It was not until Rome’s Punic Wars, which included battle with Hannibal, the great Carthaginian general, that the Italians developed a concept of total war which allowed them to compete with such ferocious and brilliant foes, says Webster. For example, when Carthage was finally defeated, the city was leveled and the ground plowed and sowed with salt for religious symbolism, according to Polybius, an eyewitness. Also, because salty soil loses its fertility, according to Bryan Bunch’s The History of Science and Technology. This helped end the Punic Wars, once and for all.
America’s ideals of charity emanating from its vast grounding in the Christian faith have helped it achieve an unprecedented level of good acts delivered to the rest of the world. For example, Congress appropriated $39 billion global aid in 2004, according to the U.S. AID Web site at usaid.gov. It is well known that the US gives billions of dollars in assistance every year to many countries. Much of this goes to the Middle East. Such charity was historically encouraged by verses like 1 Corinthians 13:13: “And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity.”
Another way America helps the world is by stationing armies in friendly foreign countries, such as Germany, Japan, England, etc. This is a continuation of America’s commitment to bolster our allies, especially ones rebuilt through the Marshall Plan. But a new kind of global aid has been envisioned by Obama—combining charity with military action.
Now that Obama has signed off on military intervention for humanitarian purposes, it opens a bold new frontier. We attacked Libya because Gaddafi was supposedly planning on killing many rebel insurgents. Our rockets helped stave off this cull, and liberals across the world rejoiced. If this is a defensible action, there are many more place around the globe that need such military humanitarianism.
Consider the countries which have major violations of human rights, or genocides going on! For example, there are hundreds of thousands of people held in North Korean prison camps for such crimes as being a Christian. Writes the UK Guardian,
Most are imprisoned because their relatives are believed to be critical of the regime. Many are Christians, a religion believed by Kim Jong-il to be one of the greatest threats to his power. According to the dictator, not only is a suspected dissident arrested but also three generations of his family are imprisoned, to root out the bad blood and seed of dissent.
The entire state is like a prison camp because the standard of living is artificially low due to communist sabotage. Writes the Washington Post, “The U.S. government and human rights groups estimate that 150,000 to 200,000 people are now being held in the North’s prison camps.” Further, horrific crimes are perpetrated on these unfortunates, daily. So to liberate these people, many of whom are killed each year by the government, and who have no rights, would be the equal of the good done in Libya.
Now consider the other countries which need a like liberation from murderous regimes, or states where no human rights exist, or where they are kept in the handcuffs of artificial poverty. A brief list would include: China, North Korea, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Venezuela, Somalia, Sudan, Chad, Burundi and Equatorial Guinea, etc etc etc. The fact is, the average American has no idea the suffering of millions or billions around the globe simply for the sin of being born under the wrong government.
What America could do, by using the Obama Doctrine which states that a humanitarian crisis is enough to attack or invade a country to save the citizens. We do this by combining Christ with Caesar and making sure the might of Rome is not wasted when the love of Christ is needed to save the poor and oppressed. But since America is the last superpower, and has never attempted to subjugate the rest of the world—why not do so now? In other words, why not use the UN and NATO to attack each tyranny and liberate all of the people of the world?
The term “Post-Modern,” is a description of the current leftist world view. It is sometimes mentioned but never defined. Postmodernism is, as the name implies, a criticism of the past. But this is not unique. What gives postmodernism its flavor is its progressive Marxist values, and its implication that “truth” is an outmoded idea. Moreover, Postmodernism claims to achieve what Nietzsche stated was his goal in Ecce Homo—a pagan reevaluation of all values. He wrote here, “I am not a man, I am dynamite!” Postmodernism began as an artistic movement, but its ideals have been grafted into politics and government—which is not surprising because of its socialist core. Consider it another tentacle, much like Political Correctness, of cultural Marxism.
Christopher Butler, in Postmodernism, A Very Short Introduction, uses the metaphor of a “party” to describe the world view of these persons:
This party is by and large internationalist and ‘progressive.’ It is on the left rather than the right, and it tends to see everything, from abstract painting to personal relationships, as political undertakings…It is certain of its uncertainty, and often claims that it has seen through the sustaining illusions of others, and so has grasped the ‘real’ nature of the cultural and political institutions which surround us. In doing this, postmodernists often follow Marx.
Barack is arguably a postmodern figure. He does not simply support leftism but appears thoroughly marinated in the claims and illusions of socialism. How else, for instance, does Obama continue stating the claim that the US is unique in its sins against humanity? And it therefore must be pushed from the world stage and accept the fact America has nothing special to offer? In other words, Barack carries a subjective view of the world, derived from Marxism, which allows him to repeatedly claim the US is an evil-doer on the world stage and owes humanity an apology. This is despite little evidence existing to prove his point, and voluminous proof establishing the opposite. This simple proves Postmodernism is a fact-free ideology.
The center of Postmodernism is a battle over the meaning and definition of the concept of “truth.” This occurs on several levels. First, it is claimed no traditional and unique definition of truth exists. Then, the postmodernist inserts Marxist definitions of truth into the debate. There is, to a committed postmodernist, no such thing as an established truth. This is the logical result of denying the possibility of a God or revelation.
For example, books therefore have no definite meaning. Butler states postmodernism is constructed upon a foundation of radical skepticism. An example of how this might work is illustrated by the current liberal debate over what is a defensible, versus unacceptable practice of “Just War.”
But the purpose of mentioning Postmodernism is simply to point out that Obama is no doubt a believer in its contradictory theories, because he is an animal of the academy and predisposed towards socialism. In fact, this helps explain why he would go from pacifist to war-monger, and not feel he has even changed his position, in the least. Truth doesn’t exists, it’s just a tool of the oppressor. But its good to changes his political stance, even at the risk of seeming a hypocrite, if it can help establish his longterm political goals.
Of course, the initial analysis of the Obama Doctrine leaves out many unanswered questions, which must be addressed. But many commentators have simply concluded Barack is incompetent more than anything else. So we must analyze his latest example of foreign policy. Consider the following questions motivated by Obama attacking Libya.
First, Can we possibly allow any president to launch military action without even discussing the option with Congress or asking their permission, which implies a offering a mission statement and goal?
Second, Is the US military really setup for humanitarian projects, which imply by definition, nation-building campaigns?
Third, Who will decide which countries get attacked to liberate the residents?
Fourth, What standards are we promoting in these missions—Christian, atheist, Marxist, or Obama’s pet project, Islam?
Fifth, Will we demand tribute from the countries we free so we can afford the exercise?
Sixth, How will we choose the “correct” side to back in any country, or does it even matter?
Seventh, Will we turn our back on every former ally whenever their people revolt against them?
Eighth, Are we prepared to back Muslim radicals in one country while fighting the same radicals in another?
Ninth, Is it even remotely possible that the Obama Doctrine will not eventually blowup in our faces?
Tenth, Will we create a new Roman empire and make the whole world behave according to Western ideals of law, economics, freedoms and government? If not, do we really have a just purpose, after all?
Eleventh, Does Barack really think his off-the-cuff military action will aid America? Does he care? Or will this end up like every other impulsive and willful decision he has made since entering office?
Twelvth, How does Obama think his hairsplitting definitions of the “good war” will resemble anything other than utter confusion, or an unprincipled power grab?
Kelly O’Connell is an author and attorney. He was born on the West Coast, raised in Las Vegas, and matriculated from the University of Oregon. After laboring for the Reformed Church in Galway, Ireland, he returned to America and attended law school in Virginia, where he earned a JD and a Master’s degree in Government. He spent a stint working as a researcher and writer of academic articles at a Miami law school, focusing on ancient law and society. He has also been employed as a university Speech & Debate professor. He then returned West and worked as an assistant district attorney. Kelly is now is a private practitioner with a small law practice in New Mexico. Kelly is now host of a daily, Monday to Friday talk show at AM KOBE called AM Las Cruces w/Kelly O’Connell
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement