Was Obama Stampeded Into War?
“NATO is moving very slowly, allowing Gadhafi forces to advance,” said rebel leader Abdul Fattah Younis, as the Libyan army moved back to the outskirts of Ajdabiya, gateway city to Benghazi.
“NATO has become our problem.”
Younis is implying that if NATO does not stop Libyan soldiers from capturing Ajdabiya, the rebels may be defeated—and NATO will be responsible for that defeat.
And who is Abdul Fattah Younis?
Until six weeks ago, he held the rank of general and interior minister and was regarded as the No. 2 man in Moammar Gadhafi’s regime.
Yet his military assessment does not appear too far off.
Last week, Gadhafi’s forces were again on the offensive, after having been driven by U.S. air and missile strikes all the way back to his hometown of Sirte.
What gave the Libyan army its new lease on life?
The Americans handed off the war to NATO and moved to the sidelines, restricting U.S. forces to supporting roles.
As of today, however, it appears that if the U.S. military does not re-engage deeply and actively in this war, the Libyan uprising could go down to defeat. And we will be blamed.
How did Barack Obama get us into this box?
Last week, Sen. Jim Webb questioned Gen. Carter Ham, head of the U.S. Africa Command.
As neither the United States, nor its citizens, nor any U.S. ally had been attacked or imperiled, Webb asked, what was the justification for the U.S. attack on Libya, whose government, Gadhafi’s government, the State Department still recognizes as the legitimate government of Libya?
“To protect lives,” was Ham’s response.
Yet, as last week brought news of the slaughter of 1,000 civilians by gunfire and machete by troops loyal to Alassane Ouattara, the man we recognize as the legitimate president of the Ivory Coast, a question arises: Why was a real massacre in West Africa less a casus belli for us than an imagined massacre in North Africa?
Was Obama stampeded into war by hysterical talk of impending atrocities that had no basis in fact?
That is the issue raised by columnist Steve Chapman, that ought to be raised by a Congress that was treated almost contemptuously, when Obama launched a war without seeking its authorization.
On March 26, over a week after he ordered the strikes on Libya, hitting tanks, anti-aircraft, radar sites, troops, and Gadhafi’s own compound in Tripoli, 600 miles away from Benghazi, Obama told the nation he had acted to prevent a “bloodbath” in Benghazi.
“We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi—a city nearly the size of Charlotte—could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.”
White House Middle East expert Dennis Ross reportedly told foreign policy experts: “We were looking at ‘Srebrenica on steroids’—the real or imminent possibility that up to 100,000 people could be massacred, and everyone would blame us for it.”
A hundred thousand massacred! And our fault? But that is seven times the body count of Katyn, one of the Stalinist horrors of World War II. Was Benghazi truly about to realize the fate that befell Carthage at the hands of Scipio Africanus, at the close of the Third Punic War?
How did the White House come to believe in such a scenario?
In this low-scale war, the cities of Zwara, Ras Lanuf, Brega, and Ajdabiya have changed hands, some several times. Misrata, the only rebel-held city in the west, has been under siege for seven weeks.
Yet in none of these towns has anything like the massacre in the Ivory Coast taken place, let alone Srebrenica. The Guardian‘s Saturday report read, “Fierce fighting in Ajdabiya saw at least eight people killed.”
Yemeni President Saleh’s security forces killed six times that many civilians just to break up one rally in his central square.
True, on March 17, Gadhafi said he would show “no mercy.” But as Chapman notes, he was referring to “traitors” who resisted him to the end. And Gadhafi added, “We have left the way open to them.”
“Escape. Let those who escape go forever.” Gadhafi went on to pledge that “whoever hands over his weapons, stays at home without any weapons, whatever he did previously, he will be pardoned, protected.”
Perhaps Gadhafi is lying.
But there is, as yet, no evidence of any such slaughter in any town his forces have captured. Nor do the paltry forces Gadhafi has mustered to recapture the east—Ajdabiya was attacked by several dozen Toyota trucks—seem capable of putting a city of 700,000 to the sword.
With the Libyan war now seemingly a stalemate, and pressure building for the United States to renew air and missile strikes, and train and equip rebel forces, Congress needs to learn how we got into this mess.
Was Obama stampeded into this war by the panic and hysteria of his advisers? Because, quite clearly, he did not think this thing through.
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM
Read more by Patrick J. Buchanan
- A Decade of War – for What? – May 3rd, 2012
- Tomorrow’s Man – or Yesterday’s? – April 26th, 2012
- Bibi’s Dilemma — and Barack’s – April 16th, 2012
- Is the GOP Becoming a War Party? – March 8th, 2012
- Will Bibi Break Obama? – March 1st, 2012





RickR30
April 12th, 2011 at 9:18 pm
Another one of those somewhat ambiguous articles by Pat. "If we don't get more involved, we will be defated." As if there were a way for "us" to win this. As if something were at stake for us.
Was Obama stampeded into this? Perhaps bullied is a better description. This assumes that he in some way was involved in a decision. Most likely the war mobsters in government made the decision and Obama, Hillary and the other witches, now have to come up with pretty speeches to try and justify this. Obama is irrelevant, a powerless sockpuppet, I doubt anyone consults with him about anything. The shadow government is in complete control, the public officials we see on stage just play their part.
JDonald
April 12th, 2011 at 9:27 pm
Dennis Ross must go. His tainted views of the Middle-east through Zionist eyes will continue to expend US dollars for the sake of defeating anything Islamic in that region. I think that he has cost us enough with his adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere. Can't we get a break from this warmongering. Hillary is certainly not capable of stemming the tide.
MoT
April 12th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
Stampeded? Puhleeze!…. The empty suit knew full damn well what he was doing and all the hand wringing and tut-tutting about whether the poor sod was bullied into sending rockets laden with death onto peoples heads is simply absurd. He is what he is and what he is… is a carbon copy of the man he replaced. And that dolt was just as culpable as the jerk in office right now.
sherban
April 12th, 2011 at 10:58 pm
When i read that Pres.Obama began his presidential campaign i understood the motive of Libya war.I'm sure that a president will not make such a grave mistake how is a war when he is in elections campaign if he was not sure that the war is wanted,is popular.
Bodkin
April 12th, 2011 at 11:21 pm
It wasn't in Israel's interests to see Gadhafi toppled, idiot. Why don't you stick your kneejerk "IT'S THE ZIONISTS!!!" mentality up your robotic backside. Who calls the shots, Obama or the lowly Ross? Why am I not surprised that an antiwar robot looks for a Zionist (a code-word, of course) to blame instead of the actual decision maker? Buchanan knows perfectly well that Ross was only one of several advisers, and not nearly the most influential, which was probably Samantha Power. But mentioning Ross elicits more anger…
"defeating anything Islamic in that region"
Yeah, right! Last I checked, Iran wasn't getting so much as even a talking-to from Obama. Obama is perfectly happy to welcome the rise of the most dangerous, fanatical Islamist hegemon in the region. So much for your moronic fantasy.
hardtruth
April 13th, 2011 at 3:35 am
"How did the White House come to believe in such a scenario? "
They didn't. Why assume the Washington warfilth believe their own lies?.
geo1671
April 13th, 2011 at 4:50 am
Boobkin–How do you know that "It wasn't in Israel's interests to see Gadhafi toppled"?
Sweet crude oil is a money maker.Ever heard of United States of Israel and if you do,isn't NATO part of it?? Controlling the world's oil supply is secondary to the Zionists. MONEY SUPPLY ,my dear little Boobkin is 1 st. Prior to Libya invasion (Bombings),there were 5 countries that their Banking systems were NOT controlled by the ZIONIST Rothchilds Banks.Today there is only 4 Cuba,Iran.North Korea,Sudan P.S. That story that Israel provided DaffyDuck with 50,000 Black mercanaires was MOSSAD/CIA B.S.–sure suckered me Royally againist Gadhafi :^(
Bodkin
April 13th, 2011 at 5:21 am
Geeko, how do YOU explain that Samantha Power is virulently anti-Israel and the leader of the bomb-Libya crowd, and yet it's supposedly a Zionist who made common cause with her? If Ross is truly an Israel-firster, he would never make common cause with Power.
It was never in Israel's interests to see Gadhafi toppled or replaced by fanatical jihadists. Apparently, Iran has already engineered the smuggling of chemical weapons out of Libya and into the hands of its anti-Israel proxy militias, taking advantage of Gadhafi's lack of control.
Instability in the Middle East = higher risk of Iran-orchestrated weapons smuggling & terrorist activity = BAD FOR ISRAEL
Die Wahrheit zählt
April 13th, 2011 at 5:21 am
A joke did the rounds back in 1945 when Clement Attlee replaced Winston Churchill (a hero of George Dubya, need any more be said?) as British Prime Minister – 'an empty cab drew up at 10 Downing Street and clem Attlee got out'.
The same could be said of Obama. MoT is right, an empty suit. Completely useless.
ronin1776
April 13th, 2011 at 5:27 am
This splendid little war was primarily Hillary's doing. She did the footwork, going to Saudi and getting Saudi gold and diplomatic support in exchange for turning a blind eye to the massacres in Bahrain and the Saudi military intervention there. She got her fellow "diplomat" Susan Rice to engineer the UN resolution. She stood up to Gates and Adm. Mullen and told Obama what to do. Hillary works for AIPAC. Q.E.D.
VietnamWarVet
April 13th, 2011 at 5:59 am
The 'three bimbos' – Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and Samantha Powers – are three 'advisors' most responsible for 'pushing' Barack Hussein Obama into an illegal unnecessary and costly war with Libya – of course, it is pretty easy to push an 'empty suit' to do anything.
What did we expect from a former 'community advisor' who is a puppet to George Soros?
Any doubts that in Barack Hussein Obama we have a LIAR for a President who is a trained Marxist; anti-America; anti-Christian, racist anti-White, and totally INCOMPETENT – any questions about that?
donna
April 13th, 2011 at 6:07 am
Obama's "explanation" for the attack on Libya is a 21st-century version of the "white man's burden"–we have to save them from themselves. But the reality is, America and its European allies are on another imperialist jaunt because, well, heck, they need the oil. Having caved to corporate interests and failed miserably to develop alternative resources, these countries are now doomed to repeat the 19th-century wars for commodities. What did Marx say about history repeating itself as farce?
Chris Moore
April 13th, 2011 at 9:23 am
So the warmongering neocons/neolibs are going to get away with lying America into yet another war using stale, hysterical "humanitarian imperative" rhetoric.
A few short paragraphs from Wikipedia tells people everything they need to know about Obama’s handler Dennis Ross :
"During President Jimmy Carter's administration, Ross worked under Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz in the Pentagon. There, he co-authored a study recommending greater U.S. intervention in "the Persian Gulf Region because of our need for Persian Gulf oil and because events in the Persian Gulf affect the Arab-Israeli conflict." During the Reagan administration, Ross served as director of Near East and South Asian affairs in the National Security Council and Deputy Director of the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment (1982–84).[cont]
Chris Moore
April 13th, 2011 at 9:27 am
If these people are so interested in "humanitarianism," how is it that their interventions inevitably end in mass slaughter, massive war-footing Big Government centralization, massive wealth transgers from average Americans to the military-industrial complex and the "national security" state, and massive nullification of Constitutional and individual rights?
This is all just another Marxist/Keynesian Big Government power grab/theft and fraud racket using "humanitarianism" as window dressing — the classic neolib/neocon modus operandi.
johnc
April 13th, 2011 at 9:42 am
The Denis Ross quote is priceless: "we are looking at Srbrenica on steroids." Indeed. http://www.antiwar.com/srebrenica.html
David4Peace
April 13th, 2011 at 9:44 am
"Samantha Power is virulently anti-Israel"?? On what is this based? As if a "virulent" opponent of Israel could ever gain a major position in the USG.
andy
April 13th, 2011 at 9:59 am
We should have just minded our own business.
huelouhua
April 13th, 2011 at 11:12 am
war in the ivory coast to put in power a serial killer and baby burner whose thugs -i believe your president likes this word- has been killing since 2002. poor america. or do you actually deserve this guy?
Bodkin
April 13th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
"Hegegomy"? Sounds like a surgical procedure. A good hegegomist must be hard to find.
You're proof that the Pavlovian columnists have trained you well. You just blurt out labels like "neocon" even when they don't apply, because you can't think critically. I'm against all the wars, including Libya, and I wasn't suggesting that America bomb Iran. I mentioned Iran only to show that Obama is obviously NOT trying to "defeat anything Islamic in that region", as the first poster claimed.
But it's certainly NOT a fantasy to describe the Iranian regime as a ruthless bunch of fanatical, despotic, terror-supporting zealots who brutalize their own people. Since I believe it's those people (and not a foreign military) who need to overthrow their regime, I don't see how I qualify as a neocon. That's just a label your robotic uncritical brain is programmed to spew.
Bodkin
April 13th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Power wants America to install a "mammoth protection force" to prevent Israel from taking any military action, and redirect all of Israel's aid to what would likely become a terror-supporting Palestinian state. It would soon be open season on Israelis and they wouldn't be able to defend themselves. Basically, her ilk wants America to do to Israel what NATO has been doing to Gadhafi.
And there are plenty of opponents of Israel who have the President's ear.
RickR30
April 13th, 2011 at 1:25 pm
"ruthless bunch of fanatical, despotic, terror-supporting zealots who brutalize their own people." A fine description of the israeli regime.
Bodkin
April 13th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Huh? Many of the people you name are NOT Zionists. Cameron referred to Gaza as a prison camp, angering (and demonizing) all of Israel. Sarkozy wants Avigdor Lieberman fired (and France & UK regularly vote against Israel at the UN). Susanne Rice got Canada kicked off the UN Security Council because Prime Minister Harper is very pro-Israel, which hurts Obama's agenda. Samantha Power wants to impose a "mammoth protection force" to prevent Israel from defending itself militarily, thereby making them sitting ducks. Hillary is an opportunist with no allegiance who claims she'd "obliterate Iran" one day, but the next day pressures Israel to fork over defensive territory in return for not even an illusion of peace.
Yes, it's to control the flow and price of oil (mostly for European elites, so their economies don't collapse). It's also for making Sarkozy look tough at home, where he's less popular than his political opponents, and an election looms.
Bodkin
April 13th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Another thoughtless cheap shot. That seems to be your specialty.
Israel doesn't hang gays (in fact, they have a gay pride parade). Israel doesn't oppress women or recruit suicide bombers. Israel protects its people, whereas Iran is happy to let the Basij dogs loose on ordinary Iranians. Iran and Syria are regimes that will slaughter their own to stay in power, whereas Israel's government transfers power peacefully like other modern nations. But I'll leave you to your kneejerk cheap shots. They seem to bring you satisfaction.
MoT
April 13th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
There is a saying that a people get the government they deserve. You have an evil lying bastard, just like before, and a phalanx of enabling ass kissers, due to some knuckle dragging idiots who "voted" them in out of spite because they actually believe there is a short hairs worth of difference between the two sides of our one-party plutocratic state. Until folks wake up from their delusions and realize that they and their forebearers have been gamed for generations its never gonna change.
jeff_davis
April 13th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
I'm sorry, but the way we got into this is crystal clear. Gaddafi has been on the CIA's hit list since the moment he came to power. The general Arab uprising — the so -called "Arab spring" — presented the opportunity, and the CIA told Obama it was time to act. Obama, ever the spineless and expedient tool of the establishment, rushed to the podium to apply his rhetorical talent to that end, and viola! here we are. The oil thieves are happy, the Zionists are happy, the war profiteers are happy, and Obama is happy to have a war with which to kick off his re-election campaign and demonstrate his national defense bona fides.
Regarding his re-election, to paraphrase George Bush: "Fool me once shame on you,… I won't get fooled again etc…." Go Trump! (or anyone but liar Obama.)
Michael
April 13th, 2011 at 7:09 pm
Firstly the President of The United States of America is a free thinker..a man of self liberty..personally how he has used his liberty with the power of that office is terrible.Yet for the most part quite a few of our Presidents have behaved as liberty lovers,however there love
of liberty has transgressed on the liberty of
billions of people thur extremely bad policies domestically and internationally.There are two sacred documents one is the womb in which the new life was created the other is the new life, The Declaration of Independence the womb,The Constitution of The United States of America the new life.We must be born again.