Sorry the the slightly last minute post. My blog got erased because it confused my two gmail accounts and my attempt to correct it was a massive failure. I went into the dashboard and looked for my saved draft but it wasn't there. Really frustrating.. so here is a slightly different version of my original would-have-been post that isn't as well written due to my now frustrated attitude.
The article I found is from our very own Minnesota Daily, "Obama's Libya Predictament" Basically outlines the concerns about the time that will be spent in Libya, and hints at our reasons for being there,
"The approach we take in Libya can model a full-scale intervention, like in Iraq, or we could use less intervention, like we did in the less successful Afghanistan campaign. We could simply aid the rebels and then stop being involved. This will result in a relatively quick mission. The result, however, could be another dictator with stronger anti-Western views and even less regard for human rights coming to power and turning Libya into a national security threat."
Because God forbid they have a leader that we don't like. Our government will not allow that to happen.
But mostly the article talks about how Obama is really hurting his re-election status,
"Obama is in a difficult position. He will either lose support from his political base or he’ll be risking the long-term security of the U.S."
I think this article is a perfect example of what Loewen was talking about. We always have to play the "international good guy." This whole Libya/Gadhafi conflict is another perfect example to help Loewen's argument. "Among the less savory examples are various attempts by U.S. officials and agencies to assassinate leaders or bring down governments of other countries" (226). This also loosely ties into The American Pageant about the Truman Doctrine -aiding countries trying to resist communist aggression (892). I say loosely because this conflict does not have to do with communism but it does involve putting our noses -and wallets- into another country to "help" [FORCE] them to what "they" [WE] want [them] to do/become. So much for the metaphorical "invisible hand," it really just belongs to our government.
Source: http://www.mndaily.com/2011/04/04/obama%E2%80%99s-libya-predicament
Let me say that I share your frustration with the conflicts that have risen from the combination of the two accounts, you are not alone :)
ReplyDeleteI also saw this article in the MN Daily and I found myself very taken aback by the correlations that could be drawn to Loewen. Our country has this need to play the "international good guy" and seem to never have a time where we have a lack of a public enemy number one that we need to go and find, change, or ultimately aid in the death of. Why is this our job to make sure that we are the "heros" who came in just in time to rescue any nation across the world. There have been times where this was a relavent move for the United States and our President to make but other times it seems like we are simply medeling for the sake of doing so.
As far as the election jeoparty that Obama supposedly put himself in by making the decision in Libya, I can not help but to also loosely relate it back to when Bush decided to have our troops enter Afghanistan, and then Iraq, Iran and many other Middle Eastern countries to follow. Making our enemy change from Osama bin Laden to Sadam Hussein and at times no clear mission declared to the American public. In pop-culture this "war" and Bush because subject to question, dispopularity and mochary. Yet, Bush was elected for two terms. Why were his chances for elections not as effected?
I think that his election the first time around was effected by this because people didn't already have some preconceived sour attitude about what was going on in Iraq. I know some did, but it wasn't as big as it is now. Also you have to remember that Bush went in after 9/11 happened. So there was a very black and white reason that the American people could stand behind to believe we were doing the right thing. But with this thing in Libya, there isn't that black and white reason that we can all agree on. And since everyone is so sick of whats been going on in the Middle East they're wary that the same thing will end up happening in Libya. All Obama's next opposing candidate has to do is take a strong stance against going into countries in this way and he will win the hearts of a ton of people.
ReplyDelete