He spoke!

Tuesday-March 29, 2011 He spoke! He did not lead, he was too late and he showed little passion – otherwise, the president’s speech was a good. It was designed for our consumption and he succeeded. The president tried to convince a listening audience that it was in America’s best interest to fight this fight. He tried to convince us that the action was in accordance to our goals and objectives. He tried to lay out a new policy of using America’s strength as the world’s police, when it becomes necessary. He tried to say that we worked with coalition leaders and that he made the decision to go to the U.N. All of what the president said is fine and good. I honestly can’t disagree with what he said, but I don’t trust that what he said is what he necessarily believes. The President used the back drop of the National Defense University for the speech, not the Oval Office. The president’s speech was not in prime time and the major networks did not carry it. What the public consumption will be is the diluted sound bites and the favorable reporting of the biased press. The President used the comparison of humanitarian aid and not the military or Washington going it alone. The President could not pass up the chance to compare his quick war to that of George Bush’s lingering war. He also intimated that he was the president who was bringing the troops home and winning the war on terror, without using the word terror. If the operation in Libya is turned over to NATO as the president said our troops would then be under NATO control. Every country in NATO would then see how our military platforms work on the ground. I am not talking just about weapons I am talking about as the president put it “unique capabilities” not only in strategy but in how our troops are commanded in combination. We would be making our playbook public. The president did not answer the one remaining question and that is when will this be over? What happens if Qadaffi is able to cling onto power? The president said that he averted a blood bath, but if Qadaffi clings to power what will be the blood bath that will ensue? The president did not address the knowledge gap that now exists. In other words, who are the opposition forces that we are defending? There are new reports that the opposition forces are the jihadists that we were fighting in Iraq. Any thing is possible in this part of the world. The president did not talk about the Pentagon concerns that “the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.” The broader question that is not yet answered is what happens if some the freedom fighters decide to kill other freedom fighters in order to gain a political position? In many cases the history of the region brings in a greater threat when events of this kind take place. Qadaffi has been the longest surviving dictator in that part of the world. You don’t just disappear overnight when the bombs start dropping. We are, as our protocol dictates, targeting Qadaffi, but we are asking that he step down. The main question remains what happens if he, Qadaffi, doesn’t go? What the speech didn’t do was illustrate the real truth. The Europeans get 90% of their oil from Libya. The Lockerbie bomber was released early on humanitarian means a year ago, so that Britain could continue getting their oil. Qadaffi held another country hostage with his oil. What happens if unfriendly forces that say they are our friends turn out to be our enemy and cut off the supply of oil to Europe? This could be a likely scenario that would require many countries to invade Libya to secure the oil. You see: “the enemy of enemy is not my friend.” We were told that the proximity of Libya, between Tunisia and Egypt, was the main concern in the region. We were told over the weekend that any unrest could overflow into a fragile Egypt and a fragile Tunisia. This is not about liberation and not about humanitarian aid; it is about the oil and who would be best to manage the reserves. This is the quintessential American $64,000 question. What we are witnessing is a hundred year event. This is the biggest shake up in Mid East politics in generations. We all hope that the turmoil today will lead to democracy tomorrow. I have been saying that democracy in the Middle East doesn’t necessarily go hand in hand. Today, we are getting reports that the Muslim Brotherhood is gaining significant ground in the new Egyptian political system. We heard Qadaffi say that he would turn Libya into another Somalia, if he is forced to step down. You see: “the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.” However, the bigger story today is what the New Black Panthers said yesterday. They said that the First Lady Michelle Obama “should leave her husband, because he is nothing but an Uncle Tom.” When words of this type are used it only disgraces a nation that has tried to elevate itself beyond these terms. As we are fighting another conflict, now in an African nation, other groups that see a weakness will target that weakness. It never fails, it is always groups like this that cause dissention. You see: “the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.” Gregory C. Dildilian Founder and Executive Director Pinecone Conservatives A footnote: The catch phrase: “the enemy of my enemy is not my friend” is something that the president will realize – unfortunately, it will be at our expense and now possibly the worlds!