Do you ever wonder how the Nobel Peace Prize Committee feels about President Obama’s Prize now that he has involved us in a third war? Maybe they feel slightly ambivalent or embarrassed, but they shouldn’t be surprised. To Obama’s credit, in the case of Libya he is doing exactly as he enunciated in his Nobel acceptance speech. In that speech he stated that there is a case to be made for the use of military force to prevent genocide. He said that the United States should lead, but never act alone and without the consent of the international community via the United Nations.
However, the lofty ideals of Nobel Peace Prize speeches are apparently lost in the vulgar specifics of political expedience and its selective application. There is no doubt that the political and military leadership of the United States prevented a major catastrophe in Libya. The consequences of genocide with the resultant destabilization of the fragile gains made in Tunisia and Egypt would have been global in consequence. It was a virtuoso performance for any President or world leader. For the first time in our lifetime, the US is bombing an Arab country with the permission of the world (including the Arab League) and with the gratitude of the people living in the country being bombed!
However, the thinly disguised military campaign has called into question the real motivation to act. How does one justify deploying AC-130 Gunships and A-10 Thunderbolts on a “Humanitarian” mission? Those weapons are designed specifically to do only one thing to humans, and that is decidedly not humanitarian in nature. What President Obama is doing is regime change with the wink of an eye and assurances to dictators who remain on our side (e.g. Dubai, Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia). That doesn’t bode too well for Democracy movements elsewhere.
Say what you will about the utter incompetence of Dubya and his method of “regime change”, but at least he was honest about it.