Obama the Neocon

Writes Richard Salsman in “Libya Exposes Obama As Our Latest Neocon President” over at Forbes:

In violation of the U.S. Constitution, President Obama has launched a semi-war against Libya, a nation that did not attack the U.S. and was not a threat to its self-interest or national security. But Obama and the neoconservative warmongers who inspire his unjust actions don’t even pretend to put America first. They presume foreign policy is morally “noble” if it sacrifices America’s self-interest, her wealth, her soldiers and even her national security. And the more such values are sacrificed, the more “success” they presume.

Although the U.S. Constitution properly designates the president as the commander-in-chief of the U.S. military, it also specifically states (in Article I, Section Eight) that the power “to declare war” resides solely in the legislature – in the U.S. Congress — the body that also has the “power of the purse,” to provide funding for legitimately-declared wars. In the same section Congress is given the power to “suppress insurrections and repel invasions,” which implies that foreign nations properly may do likewise.

Yet Obama has invaded Libya without securing a declaration of war from Congress, and is intervening in what amounts to a civil war between equally-illiberal Arabs, one side of which seeks only to “suppress insurrection.” Does this mean an insurrection in the U.S. against an illiberal Obama can be legitimately supported by foreign powers (say Canada) in a bombing campaign to degrade U.S. defenses and establish a no-fly zone on the East Coast?

It’s simply ludicrous for Obama to rationalize his actions on the grounds that he obtained permission from the U.N., NATO or the Arab League. The U.S. Constitution neither requires nor allows any of that; though it does require that Obama get permission – an explicit war declaration – from the U.S. Congress. He hasn’t done this, which is an impeachable defense, regardless of whether his predecessors committed the same wrong.

These entities are either innocuous or dangerous, for they either do not hold America’s interests as their primary aim (NATO) or actually stand opposed to America’s interests, security and the Constitution (U.N., Arab League). That’s why Obama took this route – as did Truman, Bush I, Bush II and Clinton. They all put America second or last, the supposedly “moral” stance. We’ve seen such evil before, as when Democratic presidents pushed America into disastrous wars — see Woodrow Wilson (WWI), FDR (WWII), Truman (Korea), JFK and LBJ (Viet Nam) — not solely out of U.S. self-interest, but to “make the world safe for democracy,” which means: safe for a political system America’s Founders did not want and actively opposed… [Mar. 23
2011]

Read the rest…

  • Anonymous

    Just because Obama has gone to war for the wrong reasons, or without following proper procedure, that doesn’t automatically mean that the US wouldn’t benefit from bombing Gaddafi.

    If you look at his background, Gaddafi is a maoist-islamist hydrid (note his “Little Green Book”) that has both funded terrorism (Lockerbie etc.) and was on his way to create a nuclear program (George W. Bush managed to stop him!). He is also an ardent hater of the West and a psyhcological crackpot, much like Kim Jong-Il. Getting rid of him is a step in the right direction.

    What about the rebels? We don’t know much about them yet, however what we do know is promising – they are predominantly pro-western, at least in the limited sense that they trust us to get rid of a bloodthirsty tyrant. They also want to fight the battle mostly by themselves (ie no ground-troops), which should be fine by us… that way no american lives are lost. They only want some air-support so that Gaddafi is prevented from destroying them, while they go in for the kill and pay the price for freedom in blood. This is all as it should be.

    Of course, after the war is over, the West should be extremly loud in demanding that Libya gets a representational government, with guaranteed political rights & freedom of speech, and seperation of mosque and state.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=name&id=100000501085308 Martin Lundqvist

      With “extremly loud in demanding” I mean: giving them the same treatment as Gaddafi unless they respect those rights by putting it into their constitution/legalizlation.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_45DXYO72HEJAM644FUOQJPMI7I Linda Carch

    The author claims that “Democratic presidents pushed America into disastrous wars” such as WW1 and WW11. If Germany had won WW1 or WW11, they would have had the conquered manpower and natural resources to long term militarily overwhelm the remaining free world. It would have been disastrous for America not to have entered these wars. This objectivist viewpoint that America should avoid international wars, is like a religious dogma that is impervious to reason. Its strongly believed by many because “Pope” Ayn Rand says so, and the pope is infallible.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=name&id=100000501085308 Martin Lundqvist

      ” If Germany had won WW1 or WW11…”

      It is quite apparent that you don’t have any clue about military history.

      Let’s start with WW1:

      1. Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia because of them shooting their Archduke. Russia was allied with Serbia, and attacked Austria-Hungary. Because Britain & France was allied with Russia, they declared war on Austria-Hungary. And because Germany was an ally of Austria-Hungary, Germany declared war on Britain & France.

      If Britain & France weren’t so stupid as to ally themselves with Imperial Russia, they wouldn’t have been dragged into the war in the first place.

      2. After some short fighting, a stalemate on the western front is reached. Anyone who popped their head “over the top” was shot by snipers. Anyone advancing was mown down by machine guns.

      If every British and French had stayed down in their trenches instead of clamouring for “valor in battle” and “giving my life for my country”, then at worst the Germans would’ve done the same, and it would be truly “all quiet on the western front” – or at best, the Germans would’ve advanced suicidly, been butchered by the allies, and war would’ve been won.

      3. Because Britain & France all were so suicidal in their military tactics, it was their own fault that they almost lost the war to the Germans.

      Frankly, since Britain & France had been so draconian in their disdain for soldiers’ welfare, I can’t see how a German occupation could be much worse anyway.

      And now WW2 (which is linked with WW1):

      1. The allies forced the Germans to pay reparations, and introduced the most democratic system of government in the world.

      Obviously, the allies should have occupied Germany instead à la Japan post-war instead. Also, they should’ve given it not a democracy, but a rights-respecting republic.

      2. Hitler annexed the Rhine Demilitarized zone. Then he annexed Austria, and after that the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia.

      At any of these points, the Allies could’ve declared war and stopped Hitler with ease. Instead they either ignored it (The Rhine, Austria) or appeased him (Sudetenland).

      3. After Germany attacked Soviet Russia, he had doomed himself.

      The only sensible thing to do would be to let Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany beat each other again and again until they were both exhausted, after which the US can enter the war and sweep them both off the map.

      If we followed the last point, there wouldn’t have been a cold-war, nor advanced russian arms, tanks nor airplanes sold to dictatorships and theocracies. It would have prevented the Korean War, the Viet Nam war, and the War of Terrorism. However, the Allies choose otherwise, and we have them to thank for the mess we have suffered and the mess we still have to endure today.