OBAMA'S LYBIA WAR--AEGRESCIT MEDENDO

The news that Obama has moved to open a new front and a new war in Libya is another example of American military interventionism in Muslim lands which will likely add another sad page to the already sad history of those places. In similar circumstances in the oldest and first democracy of ancient Athens, the great philospher, Socrates (469 BC -399BC) would have been plying the Agora, cornering members of the boule to use his questions (elenchus or the Socratic method) to probe the validity of the decisions of the Greek archons (leaders) of his time. But in modern America, few raise any serious questions. Our government, press and citizens all seem to fall in line with our President's statements, however untrue or even ridiculous they appear.

When I heard of Obama's plan to enter Libya brandishing cruise missiles, cluster bombs and napalm canisters---to be used only for humanitarian purposes" a quote from Virgil, (aka Publius Vergilius Maro, Roman Poet, 70BC to 19BC) popped into my mind. It is: "Aegrescit Medendo" which literally means "it becomes worse for the treatment used," but is often translated as "the cure is worse than the disease". This seemed so appropriate to the present case. Can anyone truly believe that Obama's motives are what he states and he is acting so belligerently in Libya to save human life? To me, Obama seems more a man ready to acquiesce to the existing power structure when he thinks he is cornered, or because he perceives some political gain in his aquiescence. His deep, dark eyes are presently focused, not on saving the lives of Libya's insurgents, but on saving his 2012 election bid--where he perceives a need to present a tough, macho persona to the electorate in November next. In politics, looking tough is more important than making tough decisions. One need not look further than his troop-surge in Afghanistan and its expansion into neighboring Pakistan, for evidence of what can go wrong with a largely aerial war. In both these places there are too numerous instances of "accidents, mistaken-identity, and also some obviously purposeful cruise-missile strikes and bombings targeting innocent civilians (at this juncture, I can not pass up the opportunity to remind my readers of the recent tragic deaths of nine(9)--young Afghan boys ages 9-14 who were blasted to smithereens by US bombs as they peacefully collected firewood for their parents on a hillside.) To "suppress" Libyan-air-defenses (read destroy emplacements and kill operators) there will have to be many strikes which will no doubt kill scores of innocent civilians who happen to live near-by, since many defense facilities are sited in populous areas. In what Obama proposes civilian casualties are inevitable. Therefore Obama's stated "cure" to prevent the potential for a "slaughter of innocents" is certain to slaughter innocents. Furthermore, I found his language simply too reminiscent of George Bush's syntax and rationale when GW presented his cooked-up reasons for going to war in Iraq to protect the US from the "possibility" of nuclear holocaust, by creating a conventional holocaust where nearly a million Iraqis lost their lives. It seems that Obama's rational is: if the patient needs a tooth pulled to ease the pain in his jaw, send in a surgeon to cut off the patient's head. That tooth will not hurt him any more! Agrescit medendo!

After writing that last paragraph a second quote from Virgil came to mind: "Facilis descensus averni"--(Aen.6.126) "Easy is the descent into Hell". One need not have a degree in military history to recall how unpredictable war is. And also how quickly motives and military missions magically change and morph from one thing into another. Your memory bank need go back no further than Bush II's Iraq war where, "sending a message" became, "finding weapons of mass destruction", which altered to: "spreading democracy", which changed to: "making the Middle East safe", and which finally resulted in a plaintive and surly: "getting rid of Saddam". Bush and Cheney expressed so many different aims of war over such a short period of time that it would often make one's head spin. These changes in reasons, purpose and motives are of-course tailored by our leaders to fit the political needs and vagaries of the day, minute, or to explain away unpleasant realities of the war enterprise. These alterations are termed "mission creep" by the military. Thus as Virgil stated, It's so easy to descend into hell! "Facilis descensus averni". But what is more disgraceful than a politician who affronts us with bald-faced lies (as he spends money we do not have to send our young men and women into harms way, and for highly questionable purposes)? Unhappily, such behavior is something that we almost come to expect from them! But what is more disgusting than a mendacious politician is a compliant electorate and citizenry in which no one speaks up to confront the lies and misrepresentations. Instead, Americans all line up to nod their collective heads in agreement as the President and his functionaries (and the press) shovel the manure our way. Oh where are our skeptics and our questioners? Where is our Socrates?