Overlooking the real enemy--and others every bit as vile or worse--Obama's committed brave U.S. soldiers to fight with al-Qaeda and jihadists.
Check out my latest op-ed at Human Events.
News has “leaked” that Barack Obama authorized a secret war in Libya weeks ago. According to Reuters, he “signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.”
Imagine if a Republican President ever pulled a fatal stunt like that. And if it was secret, why is Obama leaking it now?
Why Libya ?It would be one thing if Obama had been fighting the forces of jihad through a muscular foreign policy. Why wasn’t such action taken when millions took to the streets in Iran, so as to cut off the head of the snake?
Iran has been supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the unrest in Bahrain, the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Shiite jihadists in Iraq, etc. You don’t go to war at once, you go to war at last. And Iran has been at war with us and with the free world for decades.
Instead, our finest, bravest Americans are risking their lives to fight alongside al-Qaeda in Libya. That's right, our boys are, in effect, fighting alongside al-Qaeda jihadists and Libyan rebels. Are they forced to pray too? You know, Obama demands that we show respect. Just how far, O?
What could possibly be the endgame here, while al-Qaeda is snatching missiles in Libya? The “rebels” that Obama has secretly authorized arming have sold Hezbollah and Hamas chemical shells.
I am not a fan of Gaddafi—there are no heroes in this story—but Saddam Hussein made Gaddafi look like Angelina Jolie, and yet the Left is still whining and hand-wringing about that war. But they support this? What is their premise? Bush went to Congress and went to the United Natons (and gave Saddam, the butcher of Baghdad, a year to move and/or destroy his weapons of mass destruction). Obama just went to war—without Congress, without even discussing it with the American people. And again I ask, as I have repeatedly for weeks, why? Why Libya? Why Gaddafi?
Assad in Syria is much worse than, say, Mubarak in Egypt, but Obama vows not to interfere in that vassal of Iran, despite the slaughter of its people. And Obama supports the Muslim Brotherhood, which is steadily taking control in Egypt. To what end? Why hasn’t Obama taken such action against the jihad pirates in Somalia? Why not a “secret war” in Ethiopia to aid their fight against jihad? Or aid for the fight against jihad in Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia?
Because we can’t be everywhere, nor should we be. So we pick our fights based on where we can do the most good and remove the biggest evil.
Iran should have been the target. The mullahcracy should have been removed. The only revolution that was a genuine fight for life, liberty, and freedom was in Iran in the summer of 2009, and Obama ignored it. He sat back and watched the heroic Neda Sultan assassinated in broad daylight on the streets of Tehran, and thousands of others slaughtered. He backed the mullahcracy. He will always be remembered for that, especially after the coming catastrophe.
It should have been Iran—if we had picked one country to set the example of muscular diplomacy while removing the gravest threat to the free world. It should have been Iran. Period.
Bombing Libya makes no sense. Recipe: disaster.
Read the rest here.