New York Times op-ed piece by Obama, Sarkozy, and Cameronby Tony Cartalucci
Bangkok, Thailand April 15, 2011 - When presidents are writing editorials in newspapers a hard-sell is just around the corner. Judging by the recent tripartite op-ed in the New York Times by Obama, Sarkozy, and Cameron regarding Libya, the hard-sell is most likely a protracted air campaign above Libya with an ever increasing ground presence below possibly leading to an all out invasion. Clearly the operation in Libya will exceed the "days or weeks, but not months" we were told it would take.
Predictably the UNSC r.1973 mandate of "protecting civilians" has "mission crept" into providing air cover for armed militants as they fight towards Tripoli - militants now openly proclaiming their allegiance to Al Qaeda. The CIA and MI6 are also admittedly on the ground assisting the rebels and attempting to bring down Qaddafi's regime - violating entirely the contrived UNSC r.1973 that defined the intervention in the first place. Further violations come in the form of US calls to arm the rebels and allowing arms to flow into eastern Libya from Egypt. Hillary Clinton said she believed arming rebel groups was legal under UNSC r.1973. Of course, as Adolf Hitler has reminded us, everything is legal when you are the one writing the laws.
Now we are being told via this tripartite op-ed that it is unacceptable for Qadaffi to remain in power and that the operation cannot end until he is removed. Considering the verified lies surrounding UNSC r.1973's premise and the fact that the resolution has turned out to be protecting and aiding known terrorists, we should be hesitant to accept any expansion upon this disingenuous foundation. We must remember that when asked about reports of Qaddafi brutalizing his people with air strikes, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Admiral Michael Mullen both responded "We’ve seen no confirmation whatsoever."
Likewise, the International Institute of Strategic Studies conceded during a questioning session regarding military options in Libya that stories of mercenaries and the intentional targeting of civilian populations were not only unverified, but highly unlikely given that Qaddafi was well aware such actions would only further invite foreign intervention.
None of these facts seem to have impeded the "legality" of UNSC r.1973 and its ambiguous wording. Such wording has allowed "mission creep" to incrementally circumvent the public's attention span and tip-toe towards full war. With each speech, these lies are reinforced and history literally rewritten to justify a deeper, costlier, and more unpopular intervention looming just over the horizon. More is at stake than merely oil. The globalists have stated amongst the pages of their think-tank reports that Libya "is a test that the international community has to pass. Failure would shake further the faith of the people's region in the emerging international order and the primacy of international law."
The primacy of international law indeed, as the United States, in order to intervene in Libya, has completely circumvented its own national constitution regarding laws pertaining to armed intervention and the declaration of war (Article I, Section 8, Clause 11). By doing so, doubt and confusion over the mission has spread and its legitimacy rightfully called into question. Waning support or even outright opposition may hinder or terminate the operation. Such a failure would reaffirm the wisdom with which the US Constitution was drafted and would embolden nationalism worldwide around similar laws that would have observed the people's will and prevented yet another costly war of aggression.
