As has been seen with many of Obama's proposals and actions, there has been a strongly evident Republican disapproval. While not as much backlash as he has become quite accustomed to, he is now faced with opposition from Republicans, specifically House Speaker John Boehner and other House Republicans. Mr. Boehner wrote a letter to Obama, claiming that there seemed to be greater consultation with "foreign entities such as the UN and the Arab League" than the American people themselves. He wrote that the President had not clearly defined the mission in Libya what America's role is anyway. It has only been almost a week since the UNSC passed a resolution (wow!), and a couple days since France began the offensive. The agreement to protect the protesters to Colonel Gadhafi's regime from harm has held steadfast support from many countries. Although some are unsure, such as Russia, which claims they deplore the decision because it has lead to military action. But Boehner told Obama that the "resolution...is inconsistent with our stated policy goals and national interests" and has requested a "specific timeline."
Do you think the UN resolution is "inconsistent with our stated policy goals..."?
What's your opinion on how Obama has communicated the goals in Libya to the American people?
The Obama administration claims that the U.S. leadership will end within "days, not weeks." Do you think this is an appropriate timeline? Do you think the U.S. will be involved for much longer?
Do you see this letter as a way of Boehner simply trying to get his "2 cents worth" in regarding the crisis in Libya?
Any other comments?
2 comments:
Surprisingly I have to agree with Boehner here a little. He makes a valid point that the goal or goals of our intervention in Libya has not been clear. I mean my understanding was that we were implementing a no -fly zone so that the rebels and the colonel forces would have a "fair" ground war. I was a lightly supportive of such a proposition as it appeared to be the right thing to do. What concerns me is the first thing I hear of our involvement is that we are launching a barrage of long range Trident missiles at there military installments and strongholds. This doesn't on any level sound like an enforcement of a no fly zone but instead looks like a long range intervention in favor of the rebels. So correct me if I'm wrong but Mr. President I believe that we as a country should be informed just exactly what are objective is over there instead of being mislead as many prior Commander and Chiefs have done.
Before I actually comment this post I must say that I am beyond proud that the UNSC actually passed a substantiative resolution. It's not often that we see this oft-over-glorified body produce resolutions of any legitimate value or bearing.
As far as Boehner is concerned, he's just engaging in the crude and dirty game that we more commonly know as politics. Had a Republican president engaged in the same actions, Boehner would have undoubtedly been praising him or her for his or her moral consciousness, efficiency, and compassion.
Nonetheless, I personally feel that Obama's timeline is seriously flawed. By saying that America will reduce its presence within a matter of days, Obama is undermining the UN efforts to stop Ghaddafi's relentless atrocities against the people of Libya. If Ghaddafi knows that the American involvement in the country is a very limited one, he will simply wait out the American involvement and then continue his egregious actions. As such, Obama should not make any comments to the effect of when the United States will begin cutting back its operations in the region.
Post a Comment