On October 2, 2002, President George W. Bush and the House Leadership agreed on a joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War. It was a bipartisan resolution that called for Saddam Hussein to disarm and one that was meant to “confront a gathering threat to the security of America and to the future of peace”. Saddam Hussein was an evil, brutal and cruel man. “The Butcher of Baghdad,” as he was known, murdered millions of his own men while torturing and imprisoning millions of others simply to hang onto power. He created havoc in the Middle East and made the world a dangerous place. He was a treacherous man whose removal made the world a safer place to live.

The reason for the Iraqi invasion was primarily based on the belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that he supported terrorism. As President Bush famously declared, “we must confront both terror cells and terror states, because they are different faces of the same evil”. He was joined by the House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt, a Democrat, who stated that “Iraq’s use and continuing development of weapons of mass destruction, combined with efforts of terrorists to acquire such weapons, pose a unique and dangerous threat to our national security”. The resolution eventually passed the House on a 297-133 vote and was approved in the Senate 77-23.

On the same day that the President and leaders of the House and Senate announced the debate to lead the country to war, a virtually unknown Illinois State Senator, Barack Hussein Obama, gave an anti-war speech. It was that speech that propelled him to eventually become the President of the United States. I am opposed to a dumb war, he famously declared. He claimed that the war was merely a method “to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression”. He claimed that “Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States … [he] can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history”.

In March of 2011 it is President Barack Obama who is leading a war versus a dictator. Muammar Qaddafi, the “mad dog of the Middle East,” has oppressed his people in the past, supported terrorism around the world and has engaged in acts that killed innocent civilians both in his country and around the world. The man who was behind the bombing of Pan Am 103, which claimed the lives of 189 Americans, is a dangerous man that makes the world an unsafe place to live in. He is indeed worthy to be removed. However, should it be done this way, and with President Obama as the commander-in-chief?

The groundwork for the invasion of Iraq took more than a year; the prelude to Operation Odyssey Dawn took days. President Bush didn’t hesitate neither did he put the lives of our troops on the line; he made crucial and disciplined choices prior to the critical decision. Obama has too. It took him weeks to turn his words “It’s time for Qaddafi to go” into action. However, he dithered, he faltered and he waited. He waited too long; he waited for the rebels to lose, making it harder for us to remove him. He made us look weak, thus causing more harm than good to our troops.

It was France that led the mission, and President Obama obliged. But unlike the Iraqi invasion which was approved by Congress, had a coalition of 40 countries and NATO, and had a president that addressed the nation to explain the purpose of the war, the military action in Libya was not approved by Congress, is detested by the majority of NATO and seems like it has no direction and purpose. The questions that linger are: Who are we fighting for? What are the plans and where is the strategy? Why did the Libyan rebels deserve military assistance while the Iranian protesters did not? And the most important question is: Who is in charge and who will ensure that Al Qaeda doesn’t take lead if Qaddafi is removed?

The war in Libya joins two other conflicts that the United States is fighting simultaneously — including Afghanistan, which seems like a losing battle. It comes at a time when the United States is still reeling from the worst recession since the Great Depression and at a time that the unemployment rate is at its highest point in decades. At this moment in time, coincidentally at the first anniversary of the passage of Obamacare, insurance premiums keep on rising and energy prices are going on to become elastic. By all means, Qaddafi poses absolutely no imminent and direct threat to the United States. He can surely be controlled until he fades away with time.

President Obama has the duty as commander-in-chief to explain to the American public why he authorized this war. He ought to explain why in 2002 – when the US intelligence believed that Iraq had WMD and was linked to Al Qaeda – he had opposed the war and why he now approves it. As President Obama rightfully said in 2002: “The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly”. President Obama has unfortunately forgotten his own words. At the worst time possible and without Congress’ approval, he hastily and blindly led us to a battle. After weeks of dithering, he decided on a non-strategy to engage in a conflict. Today, we ask President Obama: Is this the occasion of our lifetime and what is the definition of a dumb war?

Dave Hirsch is a political analyst and columnist. He can be reached at [email protected]

NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.

DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE POSTED ON YWN? SEND IT TO US FOR REVIEW http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/contact.php