March 28, President Barack Obama gave a speech defending the military actions against Libya. He also detailed how Europe would take center stage in the conflict, rather than the United States.
Early on in his speech, he declared “for generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom.”
“Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world’s many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That is what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks.”
Reactions among Congress regarding the speech were mostly positive. A few believed the speech lacked new information or worried about the monetary cost of action. Michigan Republican Representative Candice Miller was quoted from The Journal on the speech, saying “the important question that the president did not clearly state is where he draws the line … President Obama said he did not want to wait to see images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action, however, since President Obama took office such pictures have emerged from places like the Congo and Darfur, yet President Obama did
not advocate for military intervention.”
These are my two largest issues with the military action against Libya. One, can America afford it, but perhaps more importantly, why must America pick and choose who we help and who we don’t?
The accusations that Libya only got direct military support because of its oil reserves might or might not be true. The fact such a statement could be true is disheartening. It seems like dependency on foreign oil has affected American diplomacy for decades. Picking and choosing who we help and who we ignore based on their resources and willingness to trade them is a horribly outdated model of foreign relations.
President Obama did acknowledge America cannot and should not start missile spamming every nutty despot on the planet. He also outlined when American intervention would be warranted. Picking and choosing who we help is a sad reality of upholding freedom and liberty while also not bankrupting ourselves. Not to mention our constant intervention ticks everyone else off. A delicate balance must be maintained, but that doesn’t mean we have to like it.
Realistically, it would be impossible to help everyone who needs it, and trying would lead to disaster. The criteria for who we missile massacre needs to be very carefully examined before any action is taken, then.
If oil supply and terrorist support are our measuring sticks for intervention, fine. At least we’re being honest about it. If you want that to be a message for energy independence, go ahead.
The American government seems obsessed with finding ways to intervene with other nations. While it might be done with the best intentions, the results are mixed, and our intentions rarely pure.
Remember that the next time a despot goes off the deep end.
