When President Obama addresses the nation on Monday he will seek to explain the reasoning behind the air campaign launched against Libya. When the campaign commenced it was announced that the purpose of the operation was to protect Libyan civilians from air attacks by forces loyal to Gadhafi. After air defenses were knocked out, the Libyan air force was soon swept from the skies. It was then announced that the next step would also be to protect civilians, this time from the tanks and artillery of Libyan army. Loyalist ground forces in the open were quickly decimated. Still, Gadhafi's forces refused to yield and pressed onward. It was assumed by some that, deprived of air power and hobbled by the loss of mechanized units and supplies, loyalist forces would vacate the field. They didn't. While a rebel collapse was avoided, they are still largely on the defensive. That might change very soon. The rebels might be out manned and outgunned, but they now have a top rate air force.
The United States is frustrated by the lack of rebel success so far in defeating the Libyan military, so it has decided to go over to offense. Instead of simply interdicting the Libyan air force, coalition aircraft have begun supplying air support to rebel troops on the ground. They have already attacked government forces blocking the rebel advance on Tripoli as well as loyalist troops threatening the rebel held city of Benghazi. The U.S. is considering bringing in attack helicopters to assist rebel troops. Rather than simply grounding Gaddafi's air force and protecting civilians, the United States is now assisting rebel forces fighting in the field. What began as a mission to ground the Libyan air force and protect civilians has become one of providing combat air support for rebel troops.
How far are we willing to go the ensure rebel success? Are we prepared for the event if the rebels lose? Can we afford to build another nation if the rebels win? I would say President Obama has some explaining to do.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Just Stopping By
Former Governor Sarah Palin was the most recent of the Republicans exploring a run at the presidency in 2012 to visit Israel. Yesterday, Palin had dinner with Prime Minister Netanyahu after a quick visit to Jerusalem. Palin's trip was described as a personal visit. While in Jerusalem she toured the holy sites. It has become routine for presidential hopefuls to pay homage to Israel. Israel has a special place in the heart of many Americans. Even employed politicians, such as Governor Perry of Texas, have found time to stop in and pay respects.
As is common while in Jerusalem, Palin visited some of the holy sites. She visited the Mount of Olives and stood before the Wailing Wall where she was "overwhelmed" to touch the "cornerstone of our faith", as if the Wailing Wall was the cornerstone of the Christian faith. She also spoke glowingly of America's close ties with Israel. It is curious given the tumult in the Middle East that Palin found no time to speak on events in the region: a strange silence for someone seeking to establish her foreign policy credentials.
Neither did she find time to visit any Muslim Holy sites while in Israel. Had she put in the effort she might have learned that Islam and Christianity have more in common than most people realize: certainly more than fundamentalists of either faith might think. Few Americans, and even fewer Evangelicals, are aware that when Islam first appeared in the late 6th century it was viewed not as a new religion, but as a heretical Christian sect. The reason for that misunderstanding is that, unlike Judaism, Islam recognizes Jesus, albeit as a great prophet, not the Son of God. Islam also recognizes the Virgin Mary and the miraculous birth of Jesus. Indeed, Mary is one of only two women mentioned by name in the Koran. Of course, the Immaculate Conception and the veneration of the Virgin Mary by any religion do not carry much weight with evangelicals.
Israel is a fetish for evangelicals. Evangelicals are a key constituency for any Republican hoping to win the nomination. Therefore, any Republican contemplating a run for the presidency must pay homage to Israel. While many recognize the pragmatic relationship between the U.S. and Israel, the obsequiousness on the part of some U.S. leaders, such as that displayed by Palin, does absolutely nothing to further our interests in the Middle East. America's near blind loyalty to Israel only encourages Israeli intransigence and undermines our ability to be an objective broker in the region.
A visit by an American politician to a Muslim holy site would be a significant gesture to demonstrate America's lack of antipathy for Islam. After invading two Muslim nations and bombing another, it seems the least an American leader can do is to visit a mosque and show respect. It wouldn't have been difficult. The Dome of the Rock was just up the hill. In fairness, Palin's trip to Israel was described as a private visit. Whatever her motives, she clearly did not go there to explore her faith.
For the record, I am an Orthodox Christian. If any church has good reason to bear a grudge against Islam, it is the Orthodox Church. It was our churches that were overrun by Muslims, not the Baptists' or the Pentecostals'.
As is common while in Jerusalem, Palin visited some of the holy sites. She visited the Mount of Olives and stood before the Wailing Wall where she was "overwhelmed" to touch the "cornerstone of our faith", as if the Wailing Wall was the cornerstone of the Christian faith. She also spoke glowingly of America's close ties with Israel. It is curious given the tumult in the Middle East that Palin found no time to speak on events in the region: a strange silence for someone seeking to establish her foreign policy credentials.
Neither did she find time to visit any Muslim Holy sites while in Israel. Had she put in the effort she might have learned that Islam and Christianity have more in common than most people realize: certainly more than fundamentalists of either faith might think. Few Americans, and even fewer Evangelicals, are aware that when Islam first appeared in the late 6th century it was viewed not as a new religion, but as a heretical Christian sect. The reason for that misunderstanding is that, unlike Judaism, Islam recognizes Jesus, albeit as a great prophet, not the Son of God. Islam also recognizes the Virgin Mary and the miraculous birth of Jesus. Indeed, Mary is one of only two women mentioned by name in the Koran. Of course, the Immaculate Conception and the veneration of the Virgin Mary by any religion do not carry much weight with evangelicals.
Israel is a fetish for evangelicals. Evangelicals are a key constituency for any Republican hoping to win the nomination. Therefore, any Republican contemplating a run for the presidency must pay homage to Israel. While many recognize the pragmatic relationship between the U.S. and Israel, the obsequiousness on the part of some U.S. leaders, such as that displayed by Palin, does absolutely nothing to further our interests in the Middle East. America's near blind loyalty to Israel only encourages Israeli intransigence and undermines our ability to be an objective broker in the region.
A visit by an American politician to a Muslim holy site would be a significant gesture to demonstrate America's lack of antipathy for Islam. After invading two Muslim nations and bombing another, it seems the least an American leader can do is to visit a mosque and show respect. It wouldn't have been difficult. The Dome of the Rock was just up the hill. In fairness, Palin's trip to Israel was described as a private visit. Whatever her motives, she clearly did not go there to explore her faith.
For the record, I am an Orthodox Christian. If any church has good reason to bear a grudge against Islam, it is the Orthodox Church. It was our churches that were overrun by Muslims, not the Baptists' or the Pentecostals'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)