Thursday, October 20, 2011

Libya, Uganda...Obama's Legacy?

This is from ABC News of 18 March 2011: “President Obama told a bipartisan group of members of Congress today that he expects the U.S. would be actively involved in any military action against Libya for ‘days, not weeks,’ after which he said the U.S. would take more of a supporting role,” according to sources. The president TOLD Congress what would happen. He did not ask for any sort of approval, simply ordering the military to start bombing the bejesus out of Libya, population 2 million less than that of New York City.

Almost seven months to the day later, Qaddafi has been killed. So much for Obama’s ability to understand military matters or his ability to tell the truth, since the U.S has always been involved in far more than a supporting role, whatever that was supposed to be, at a cost of well over a billion dollars, presumably borrowed from China. Since Libya has never been a threat, military, economic or otherwise, to the U.S., there was no reason for this country’s killing of innocent Libyans, so the question of the entire enterprise has to do with the president’s reason, which seems to be that Qaddafi was a mean man and had to go (State Secretary Clinton said so). Nobody with walking-around-sense believes this, but the truth will out and will probably have to do with Libyan oil, not bought by the U.S. but by England, France, Germany and Spain, the NATO biggies, the partners in crime.

The president’s latest entry into military operations is also taking place in Africa, the ordering of about 100 military personnel into Uganda, smaller than Wyoming and a bunch of other U.S. states, to help the Ugandan government capture another bad guy, Joseph Kony, head of something called The Lord’s Resistance Army. According to the Washington Times of 19 October, the Ugandan military estimated this year that only 200 to 400 fighters remain in the LRA. The Libyan military numbers 50,000, of which forces a number have fought against the al Qaeda-connection butchers in Somalia, making them battle-hardened and not exactly in need of training, which has been given as the reason for the infusion of U.S. troops.

So…the president sends 100 people in to help a 50,000-man military establishment capture a bad guy (was Hillary consulted?) leading some 300 or so other bad guys? Does Obama expect anybody with a warm forehead to believe this? Can Defense Secretary Panetta – with a straight face – actually spout this line? Or…could oil again be the catalyst for such outrageous drivel, not in terms of military strength, obviously, but for darker reasons?

World Net Daily of 15 October linked ultra-liberal billionaire George Soros with the oil industry in Uganda. Soros is a darling of the left, funding numerous liberal front-groups in the effort to turn this nation into socialism, perhaps as a part of a sort of global socialist state, the thing that appeals to President Obama, who went to the United Nations (one-world government) to cover his derriere in the unprovoked attack on Libya. The Ugandan government tightly controls the oil business, according to WND. Soros seems to be the go-to guy for any cause that purports to degrade capitalism, which could make Obama listen to him, especially in an election year. Soros needs to control the oil business in Uganda…VOILA!…send in the troops, even if they’re just for show…or to put the arm on Uganda President Museveni.

According to Wikipedia, at least 4,991 to 6,652 civilians have been reported killed in Libya by October 17, 2011. According to Wikipedia, a total of 12,770 to 16,073 deaths have been reported. These are presumed to be “ball-park” figures, not exact. How many of the killed, wounded and missing can Obama claim for the U.S. as the result of his actions, particularly during the first ten days of the conflict, when he spent $55 million per day decimating the Libyans, claiming that only military targets were in play? Bombs and missiles, besides often being fired erroneously at targets, make no distinction between the innocent and the military.

Is Obama’s modus operandi better than that of other world leaders, including Syria’s Assad and Yemen’s Saleh, who are doing what Qaddafi is accused of doing when Obama attacked him. Perhaps Obama – ironically the recipient of a Nobel PEACE prize – has concluded that he’s configured payback for the PanAm 103 crash in 1988 that eventuated in 270 deaths, 259 of them passengers and crew on the plane, and for which two Libyan operatives were brought to trial, one sentenced to life (and later released) and the other judged not guilty.

The mainstream media is falling all over itself to applaud the brave, courageous Obama, when even his own military chiefs, then Defense Secretary Gates and then Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen, advised against the Libyan bloodletting. Gates described it as “on the fly,” i.e. without any planning. That makes it easy to see why something that was supposed to be accomplished in days, not weeks, took seven months and thousands of lives. This isn’t a brief for Qaddafi, without whom the consensus is that the world is better off. With the proper planning by actual military people, the losses would have been much lighter.

The question for Obama: Is Syria next…or Yemen…or Saudi Arabia?

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home