The U.S. just started another war. We're good at starting wars. We're not good at ending them, but we start them really well. They say this is for "humanitarian" reasons. Aren't they all? But we still haven't intervened in arguably the clearest humanitarian crisis: Darfur. We're not defending civilians against brutal attacks in Bahrain or Yemen. And we didn't even care about democracy in Egypt until youthful, democratic protesters forced us to restate our values.
Muammar Gaddafi is crazy, and brutal, and dangerous. But the U.S. has known many dictators like that and has supported them faithfully for years, as long as they are compliant with our interests. But when their craziness makes them no longer compliant, we go to war against them for the humanitarian cause of protecting their people. Right.
Oh, and then there's oil. Darfur doesn't have any. Bahrain does, along with a huge U.S. naval base. And the Saudis, who have come in to crush the democratic protests in Bahrain for their good friends in the royal family, have all the oil. Obviously, no humanitarian concerns there. It's amazing how consistent U.S. foreign policy is from administration to administration, and how little changes when we elect a new president.
Then there's the cost. We're fighting to protect poor and low-income people against draconian budget cuts, but there is apparently more than enough money for another war. In just the first night of attacks, 112 cruise missiles were launched at Libya. Each one costs approximately $1 million, so there was $112 million of destruction in one night. The National Journal quoted an estimate that the ultimate costs could "easily pass the $1 billion mark." But we can afford that -- we always can for war.
The Republican deficit hawks seem unconcerned about the cost of war. They never seem to worry about that kind of spending. They're busy cutting budgets and deficits by slashing malaria-preventing bed nets, nutrition programs for women and infants, Head Start for children, Pell Grants for college students, and community health centers. The true priorities of this country have never been clearer. That's a consistent pattern too.
We've been asking "What Would Jesus Cut?" Maybe he'd start with cruise missiles.
Jim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: A Guide for Economic and Moral Recovery, and CEO of Sojourners. He blogs at www.godspolitics.com. Follow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis.
+Click here to get email updates from Jim Wallis
Follow Jim Wallis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jimwallis
The drawbacks of intervention in Libya - Opinion - Al Jazeera English
Alex Becker: Why Intervention in Libya Is Wrong in the Long Run
2011 military intervention in Libya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A Robust Doctrine for Intervention in Libya - Newsweek
U.S. Military Intervention for Libya? - Council on Foreign Relations
Europeans say intervention in Libya possible within hours of U.N. ...
After he was elected he went to the Middle East and laid out a new view of Foreign Policy. One point was Respect for the Muslim Faith. Also in that speach was a call to a more free way of life in the Middle East.
The US has long talked a good line about Self-Determination but has shown little stomach for the real thing. Now we are at the point again where we have to put up or shut up.
It is amazing that the International Community has stepped up.
There are rebellions all over the Middle East. So far only one Tyrant has been so irrational to go the old way and slaughter his people. In the 1980's under Reagan we allowed Saddam to gas his own people and not only did nothing but met with him and shook his hand. That was Empire. We needed Iraq to try to weaken Iran.
The current action is clearly not Empire, it an acknowledgement that the World Community has a responsibility to protect a people from Dictators when the people seek to exert their will against that Dictator.
We did not become the United States of America overnight. It took years of struggles against Kings and development of philosophies that laid out a way for people to govern themselves. We are still a work in progress.
please explain Bosnia, Kosovo and Somalia...I realize you have war-fatigue, but just cause you're tired doesn't mean you can prevaricate...and where was the oil there?
We lost people in Somalia. Somalia was an ill conceived action much like the Bay of Pigs in the beginning days of the Kennedy Administration. Somalia is still a disaster area. Only memorial we have for Somalia is a movie.
Machiavelli, warning the princes of Italy against untrammelled aggression, a lesson unlearnt by US politicians today.
This is nothing like Iraq; ironically had we not gone into Iraq these uprising likely would have hit Iraq hard by now giving us the opportunity to dispose of Saddam's regime with only limited assistence to rebels and without wasting trillions on occupation while creating the perfect propaganda for radical islam like we did in Iraq.
A lot of what is said in this article is knee jerk anti-government just like Beck. The facts have been distorted to make this look like a continuation of the Bush Policies and wars. I am disappointed that Wallis is not able to see that this action is drastically different from any other military action since Bill Clinton in the Break up of Yugoslavia.
Clinton saw and articulated a path to a Global Community and that was derailed in 2000. Obama is slowly, quietly moving us back to that path. It would be ironic if that path is once more disrupted by the failure of the Left to see though their biases and irrational determination to only accept the perfect.
It is a messy world and to move forward we must take what ground we can rather than ideal ground we want. The US, in a rare action, has put its money where its mouth is. We have supported an uprising for self determination. IT will not be perfect and we can not just walk away if and when Gaddafi is defeated and removed.
We live in this world and we will be affected by the rest of the world, Japan being a major example. We are part of a World Community and must be responsible partners.
In a Dec. 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe, Obama was asked about the president's constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking authorization from Congress.
"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," Obama said four years ago. "As commander in chief, the president does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the president would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent."
Not clear when you are trying to say the second quote was (four years ago is 2007 same as the first quote) but he correct and not contradicting his first. The Constitutional authority is laid out in the War Powers Act, previously misused by at least two presidents. In the case of Libya, it is being used exactly as the act was intended, for a limited short term action.
In answer to your question, yes, In the Break Up of Yugoslavia, NATO served basically as a Peacekeeping force with a military intervention to stop the genocide there.
It is early yet, but I believe that the action in Libya will also be viewed as such an action. I believe that is the intent.
Absolutely. Both parties are exactly the same. They quibble over cultural issues to make the people think there's a difference but on economic and foreign policies - exactly the same. Nothing will change unless we start electing third parties.
The ONLY change we need is to BAN Lobbyists!
Am I to understand that if I can not rid myself of all my sins, I should just give up and not try to deal with the ones that avail themselves? That is what the lame argument that because we are doing nothing for Darfur who "has no oil" we should just let Gaddafi roll over His people and murder them.
The US did not start this. The Libyan people rose in rebellion against their brutal leader like their neighbors had risen against their Tyrants. When Gaddafi was willing to massacre his people an International Coalition, supported by the UN and the Arab League established a No Fly zone to keep the battle field level.
Speaking of Hypocrisy and Oil, I think that the people of the US need to be a little more honest in their outrage of conducting wars for oil. Since Jim Wallis brought up Jesus, many of the Christian Churches of the US are Huge Edifices that require a Huge amount of Oil to operate. Huge parking lots filled with gas guzzling cars.
It is asked 'What Would Jesus Cut". I do not think Jesus is real concerned about what Caesar is doing. I think maybe Jesus would want to suggest the budget of His Ministry when he was on this earth.
There was a possibility that 3000 lives could have been saved and US rights not been eroded. Isn't amazing how important small details can be in the scheme of things.
Reagan was only interested in defeating the Russians, not building a better future for everyone involved.
We would still be suffering some shocks from the emergence of developing countries, but our economy would be much better without all the money poured into Iraq and Afghanistan.