The deaths of Osama Bin Laden and Now Muammar Gaddafi are a vindication of an American foreign policy that actually works. For too long now we have been the cops of the world. After the fall of the Soviet Union there was no alternative. We were the sole super power.
Often our self serving imperialistic policies often angered our allies and incensed the Arab world.
http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/hateamerica.h...This is a situation no one voted us into and it has caused a lot of resentment. After 9/11 the world was in solidarity with the United States. People in foreign lands said "We are all Americans now". Most nations were willing to help us to track down the terrorists.
From the very first of the Bush administration there was more interest in invading Iraq than in terrorism. In Paul Oneil's book "The Price of Loyalty" President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.
"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Ron Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."
He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001.
http://whowhatwhy.com/2011/02/06/bush-ru...He really had little interest in the pursuit of Bin Laden and instead pursued a neo conservative agenda that had little to do with terrorism. He invaded Iraq, a nation that had not attacked us, had no terrorists, and had no weapons of mass destruction. As Alan Greenspan said it was about the oil, but there were also personal and ideological reasons.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociop...The Project for a New American Century laid out the Neo Con agenda of American Imperialism and world domination. This agenda was hostile to Europe, it was hostile to the United Nations, it abhorred the International Criminal Court. The PNAC called for a vastly increasing the military in America, but it said that wouldn't be possible without a new Pearl Harbor. 9/11 was bush's Pearl Harbor. Bush doubled the military budget and passed the Patriot Act severely restricting personal freedom.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociop...The rest of the world opposed the invasion of Iraq and UN inspectors would have soon proved that there were no WOMD which is why Bush pulled them out and rushed the invasion. Pretty much everyone now recognizes that the invasion of Iraq was a huge mistake. It was a costly diversion from our pursuit of terrorists and the diversion allowed the Taliban to gather strength.
"Jim Lobe's article provides a useful summary of why Bush's focus on Iraq (under the clearly false and fear-mongering excuses of weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism), instead of tackling terrorism, was "perhaps the single-most disastrous foreign policy decision by a U.S. president in the past decade, if not the past century." This is because it allowed the Taliban to regroup in Afghanistan leading to more expensive military operations and strengthening Al Qaeda's resolve further. Meanwhile, various US actions in Iraq and elsewhere damaged its reputation around the world."
http://www.globalissues.org/issue/245/wa...When Obama came in he switched the focus back onto containing terrorism. While announcing the withdrawal of troops from Iraq he boosted troops in Afghanistan. Obama's redirection has resulted in uncovering several attacks, and the policy was vindicated with the death of Osama Bin Laden.
http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/02/pol...Arab Spring introduced a new period and a new way to fight tyranny to the world. Tunisia and then Egypt were able to successfully remove their tyrants through peaceful protest. When the rebels in Libya tried the same thing, they were less successful. When Qaddafi was getting ready to slaughter protesters, Obama thought that it should be the policy of America to help the helpless. Many people on both the left and the right thought that we already have too much on our plate. Obama thinks that instead of unilateral action, most military action should be done by the international agencies. In the case of Libya all of the pieces came together which may prove to be the new guidelines for military action in the future.
As the president put it: "It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what's right. In this particular country – Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Qaddafi's forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground. To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."
As Vice President Biden said, we only spent $2 billion and we didn't loose one American soldier. And now Libya is free to form their own democracy, and we may get another democratic ally that also has oil.
Now that Qaddafi is dead, other tyrants are looking over their shoulders thinking they will be next. Now the oppressed all over the world have successful models for change that doesn't involve terrorism.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-20...This small investment that saved lives may have damaged the terrorists more than all of our predator drones, because it is capturing hearts and minds, – Finally!
The right wing was wrong to invade Iraq and they were wrong to oppose helping the people of Libya. As a matter of fact they have been wrong in almost everything they have done.
Perhaps the arm chair quarterbacks who have been criticizing Obama and blocking everything he tries, did not have all of the information that our commander in Chief has. Perhaps these critics are also wrong about Jobs, The Economy, Energy, Health Care and everything else they have screwed up.
Wouldn't it be amazing if we could all pull together and do what is right for America instead of having half the country pulling in the right direction while the other half wants to steer us off the cliff again?