LIBYA: OUR FIRST INTRODUCTION TO THE REAL BARACK OBAMA

My first post will address the military operation in Libya and how it has revealed the true character of President Obama for the first time.  The issues to be discussed on this topic are never ending. From regional geo-political history to American politcs, the forces at play and history driving these forces are much more complicated than portrayed by the media, both left wing and right wing.

It is obviously common knowledge that Northern Africa was once, and not that long ago, colonized by Europeans.  This region was even fought over in World War II.  Only 60 or so years have passed since many of these countries in North Africa and the Middle East have had their independence from their colonial master.  The significance: North Africans and Middle Easterners do not like intervention in their affairs by Europeans, including Americans.  It is with this in mind that terrorists such as Bin Laden exploit the colonial past and imply that it is not so past at all.  In other words, these people believe that they are in no certain terms, still colonized by Europeans and Americans.

Is this true? The obvious answer is no, not practically or politically.  But there is some element of neo-colonialism that does exist economically between Europe and these regions.  France, Britain, Spain, Portugal and other former colonial powers still have advantageous trade agreements with their former colonies.  These trade deals are similar to those that Britain had with the 13 colonies, even if unspoken.  You send us the raw materials, we will process it, and then sell it back to you.  In essence, they are buying your resources from you on the cheap, say a bushel of sugarcane for $10, and then sell it back to you as  molasses or powdered sugar for $25.  Yes it boosts your economy, however, in the end you lose $5 on the deal.  Sounds like the old colonies got the raw end of the stick.

How does this relate to Libya?-Oil.  Italian and French companies have very advantageous oil contracts with Libya and get large quantities of their oil from the country.  Is this why France was so keen on "protecting the civilians" in Libya?  Recently, Italian ministers indicated their suspicion of French motives and the possibility that they might end up with all of the migrants and none of the wealth.

I am not a liberal who believes that we invaded Iraq for oil.  I think we invaded Iraq because George Bush believed that Saddam had WMD's and that they were dangerous.  I think that George Bush carried a huge burden of protecting this country after September 11.  He made it his main cause and central theme to defeat those who brought down the towers.  This not only meant Al-Qaeda, but anyone who helped, might have helped, appeared to have helped, wanted to help, might of wanted to help...This is where Saddam and the WMD's came in.  I did not agree with the invasion of Iraq but I do not believe that it was for oil.  It is a cop out and a liberal cliche that we did.

But Libya. The French were smart about Libya.  The French knew that if they were seen as the saviors of Libya, the rebels, who if the French helped defeat Gaddafi, would be in control of the oil and in a position to offer oil contracts to the French.  The French sent warplanes to Libya that allegedly took out 4 tanks. 4.  Are the French the saviors of Benghazi now? The Americans fired 110 Tomahawk Missiles the first night of the military action. 110. These missiles costs 1 million dollars each. Not to mention that the U.S. sent over F-16's, B-2 Bombers and other aircraft.

Let's not fool around here.  The French were very smart about Libya.  They knew that the U.S. had the best resources to carry out this mission and that the Americans would be doing most of the heavy lifting.  But this is not deemed an American event...but more a French/European led event.  Why is this?  Well the obvious answer is that French planes arrived first and that President Sarcozy was the most outspoken leader regarding protecting the Libyan citizens.  Was this a ploy to get Libyan oil or a genuine concern for the Libyan people...who knows.  But WHY really is this event not seen as an American event.

Obama.  I am a Democrat and I voted for Obama, but he has failed to lead when the country and the world need him most.  We all need Obama right now to take control of the situation in Libya.  The situation in Libya is that the European countries cannot figure out who will lead the mission, either NATO, the French, some sort of council of invaders, or the Arab countries even.  The debate amongst these powers reminds one of the era of multilateralism.  Multi-lateralism consisted of a free-for-all of European powers fighting for control of land and resources.  When large empires and superpowers arose, the European countries took a back seat to the wishes of the U.S.  We took the lead role in almost every military action in which we participated. It was only proper that we took this lead role because we were expending the largest amount of resources in these military actions.  Shouldn't that be the same now?  Why aren't we in control?

Obama.  He needed to be the man to say, "look, we will do this, but we are in command", or, "look, if you want this to happen, you need us, and it will only happen if NATO is in control."  THEY NEED US.  The Europeans could not have done this without us, yet they get the credit and control of the mission.  Would Bush have stood for this? Clinton? The U.S. took a lead role and NATO took charge of the Bosnia and Kosovo missions.  Reagan? Definitely not.  Obama is scared that he will be seen as fitting into the mold of all of other U.S. presidents that have given the U.S. a "bad" name.  He does not want to be tough, opinionated, pushy, controlling, aggressive, and most importantly, he does not want to piss anyone off.  Well, I am sorry Mr. President, but as commander in chief of the U.S. Empire you need to be all of those things.

This is not the article for a debate on the U.S. Empire, but what is relevant is that we are the world empire and yet our leader refuses to acknowledge such.  Empires conquer and then pillage.  Empires get the spoils and the control.  Here, we conquer and France and Italy pillage. A council of Europeans has control.  What the hell is Obama thinking.  If we are spending millions and undoubtedly BILLIONS on this mission, we better get SOMETHING out of it, if not goodwill.  But no, we cannot even get goodwill because Obama does not want anyone to know we are even engaging in war-like behavior.

So while American teachers, law enforcement, firefighters, professionals and others are losing their jobs because of a lack of government funding, we can spend billions to bomb Libya. And get NOTHING out of it.  Not oil. Not control.  Most people would be astounded by a Democrat crying over Americans not getting any oil or control out of Libya, but this blog is about pragmatism.  Cost-Benefit Analysis.  Goodwill and good standing in the world MIGHT be worth it, but we will never know because our President is afraid.  Our President is afraid that he will have to act like a typical American President who takes charge and leads the international community.  Unfortunately, despite Obama's fears, we really need a typical American President right now.

My question to the reader is, would the Libya situation have been handled better by a different U.S. President?