He speaks!

Monday – March 28, 2011 He speaks! Tonight the president speaks about Libya. Many of the pundits on the Sunday talk shows have given their view and hopefully have given an accurate account of what the President will say tonight! Most of history is unpredictable. Most of the events that occur in the world are unpredictable. Most presidents have been unpredictable. Who could have predicted a year ago that Egypt would fall? Who could have predicted a year ago that Libya, Syria and Yemen would have civil unrest? This is why pundits speak and this is why pundits get paid. This is also why our leaders get paid. I have a sneaking suspicion that some in the government knew a year ago that the civil unrest that we are talking about today would happen. I would feel more confident, if I knew for sure. But we don’t, so punditry continues. I cannot predict what the president will say tonight, but I do know that what ever he says we will hear differing opinions of what was right and what was wrong with what the president says. The one thing I do know is that we do have the freedom of speech, so that we can be pundits and so that some of us can write what we want, when we want. In the countries that have civil unrest today, many cannot write what they want, when they want. Many cannot even read or write. But many do know that democracy can bring the freedom that some desire. When rulers like Qadaffi and Bashar al-Assad of Syria are allowed to rule as tyrants, we cannot view the word democracy in the prism of the mid east. I hope that part of the president’s message carries that thought. I hope that another part of the president’s message will explain why the action in Libya is a related to our national interest here at home and abroad. I hope the president’s message will be bold and will outline, in no uncertain terms, that the U.S. is committed to the support of democracy. What I do know is that the president’s message to night will be designed for public consumption. I would hope that it wouldn’t be. However, when a president takes this long to speak about military action you know that it will be. What makes this president different? Every president that has committed any military asset or personnel usually will address the nation within 24 hours of the decision to go to war or to make war. The president can do both, if it is in an effort to protect the country. This is the problem with Libya. No one can answer why Libya is a threat to our national security. Certainly this president hasn’t. In my opinion, just having Qadaffi around is a threat, but what do I know? I would h ope that the president sees it that way and if he does that’s enough for me to support the action or any action of the same. My judgment and my instinct tell me that part of the message will be just that. However, the other part tells me that confusion will still reign and that confusion will be the weakness that every adversary in the world senses and will continue to see. When can the president’s words be used against him? In a 2002, at an anti war rally a young politician by the name of Barack Obama said: “What I am opposed to is a dumb war, what I am opposed to is a rash war, a war based not on reason, but on passion.” This was a statement that was designed to invoke a response of the electorate in 2002. This was statement to brand George Bush’s decision to go to war as dumb, rash and, not to mention, that Republican’s passion to invade Iraq, under the guise of fighting Islamic radicalism. We all want a reason to sustain our appetite of consumption, but we don’t want to be the victims of someone have misplaced passion. This is why a president’s judgment is critical and this why we need the reason behind the president’s decision to go to war. This is why we need to know why the events that have occurred happened in the way that we have been told. We must be told what the president’s final objective is. Just last week, the president said, “If he (Qadaffi) changes his conduct he can stay in power.” Then why did the president then take the back seat in leading the war? This is very complicated and it is very confusing. I am sure a lot of other people, who are far more important than me, want to know! The spread of American Democracy in the region of the mid east and now Africa is now at the tipping point. Islamic Hegemony in the region is moving quickly and this might be the threat that no one is talking about. We do not know exactly who the rebels that are fighting for freedom and democracy are. We do not know the motives of the freedom fighters. What we do know is Qadaffi gave up his quest for nuclear weapons. He gave up his quest for expanding his reign after Reagan attacked him. We do not know exactly how the uprising in Libya started. All we can do is make our opinions known and predict what will happen. The term Islamic hegemony is now being used. “The Hegemony "leadership" or "hegemon" for "leader") is the political, economic, ideological or cultural power exerted by a dominant group over other groups. It requires the consent of the majority to keep the dominant group in power. While initially referring to the political dominance of certain ancient Greek city-states over their neighbors, the term has come to be used in a variety of other contexts, in particular Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci's theory of cultural hegemony. The term is often mistakenly used to suggest brute power or dominance, when it is better defined as emphasizing how control is achieved through consensus not force.” I have to wonder if we are exerting force to control the region or fighting a force to control the region. This is the unknown. I hope that the president will at least clarify this point, if he can! Gregory C. Dildilian Founder and Executive Director Pinecone Conservatives A footnote: Remember the TV ad – “When E.F. Hutton speaks everyone listens”? I wish we could say the same about our president.