The president's speech on the Libyan war: an aggression to logic

Tonight the American Federal Administration came up with a belated explanation to the war on Libya. Storytellers from the good old days would have done better. That's because they could seize the attention and faith of their audience. The facts they told were of course fantasy. However the narrative was logic, within the frame of that fantastic narration.

The justification for interfering in the internal affairs of that country was a slap in the face of logic, a truly incoherent babble, heaping up unconnected subjects. Let's go straight to the "big one". If humanitarian reasons justified the use of American military power (and tax payers money) to intervene in countries that are not waging foreign wars, but solely based on the ruthlessness of their dictators, no better reason could have justified the actions in Iraq. However the most vocal politician against that war was precisely the current commander-in-chief.

Number two, no vital American interest was at stake in the struggle, therefore there is no justification to use national resources for the endeavor. No reason was declared for not acting in Darfour. No doctrine was established for future actions, so that the administration will do whatever they see fit.

There is also a huge logical gap between what was said as the ultimate objective of the "mission", and what is being reported as actions on the ground. Toppling Qaddafi's regime is not the objective. Notwithstanding they are bombing his ground troops far, very far away from Benghazi. No explanation was given about who the rebels are, or what links they may have with the Al Qaeda recruits exploding themselves to kill American troops in Iraq. The obvious sensation is that they either don't know what they are doing, or they don't want us to know it. 

The saddest thing of the day in relation to that issue though came earlier in the day. A high-ranked government official came to the public to establish the parameters to judge the moral equivalence between Qaddafi's acts in Libya, and Assad's in Syria. According to that individual, the former was threatening to kill thousands of civilians in  a military assault, while the latter is only shooting a couple of guys with snipers in a police action.  That's why Assad don't have to fear intervention. The massage was clear:

"Mr. Assad, kill them and do it fast. Keep the military united though. If you do that, we won't bother you".

So much for humanitarianism...

Cheers