Libya Exposes Obama As Our Latest Neocon President

Obama — amid loud applause from neoconservative cheerleaders at The Weekly Standard, excuse-making “anti-war” leftists at The New Republic, and the seeming approval of 70% of the American people — defends his invasion and occupation of Libya on the grounds that it is not truly a “war” but instead a “humanitarian” mission. By that he means U.S. lives and wealth are to be sacrificed in order to prevent a savage political regime from harming or killing its own citizens, even if they are “rebels” of equal or greater savagery. This is not “humanitarian” or moral in the least; it’s an evil act, resting on an evil premise (that sacrifice is “noble”) and an obscene abuse of American lives and liberties, with not a single selfish gain to be had in return.

The neoconservative approach is clear, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya. If American interests are truly assaulted, Washington doesn’t respond with a robust self-defense, but if “rebels” are attacked internally by an autocratic regime it will respond, by sacrificing American soldiers and wealth. This self-effacing, self-defeating approach is typical of neoconservative foreign policy — regardless of whether it is practiced by Democrats or Republicans — and it is anti-self because it presumes self-interest is evil. The stance is timid, cowardly, apologetic and reserved when American self-interest and security are at stake, but bold, eager, unilateral, and warmongering whenever victims abroad, who mean nothing to us (or indeed, are the sworn enemy, like the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda) are “victimized” and we sacrifice to “save” them.