Last night President Obama gave a speech on the battle for Libya. While people agreed it was necessary many feel as though the president’s answers were lacking. He tried to avoid directly answering questions on how much it will cost, how long we will be involved, and what are the criteria for our involvement like this in other nations of the world. The GOP reacted by saying the president was nine days late in this speech and that he should have talked to Congress before taking our country to war. The Democrats supported the speech and said Obama needs to keep up the stream of information to the American people.
My biggest worry when this trouble with Libya started was that America would get stuck in another foreign war without the help of the international community. I commend Obama on handling this situation in such a way that we are not the main force in this effort, and that now control is being turned over to NATO. While I agree this speech did come a little late, I also understand why Obama acted first, without going to Congress. Action was needed in Libya, there can be no doubt of that. Had we waited too long the rebel forces may have been destroyed and I’m sure the international community would blame America for not acting fast enough. A speech telling the American people what our goals and involvement should have been issued sooner than nine days after our involvement started though. This situation does leave a sense of inquisitiveness as to what the exact criteria for international aid to a country actually is.
I too am pleased with Obama's handling of the situation at hand. He acted quickly in Lybia, but still kept our role to a minimum. I hope also that the "stream of information to the American people" does not dry up, but continues to flow abundantly and refreshingly. I want to be soaked in the waters of the information stream from Washington, for it is hot out in the world right now, and I need to cool off. Well written, my man-- wonderful article. ;)
ReplyDelete