Responsability To Protect

This is the new buzz phrase emanating from Obama and his apologists.

In fact, from what I can tell it is the emerging, defining foreign policy doctrine of the Obama administration, and is the impetus behind his Libyan intervention argument. This is his "preemptive doctrine", but it's preemption on steroids.

Bush declared that we had an inherent right to attack any nation stockpiling weapons, amassing troops or otherwise preparing their ability to wage war, if the express intent of such action was to attack the United States. Obama's doctrine goes further. "Responsibility to Protect" is the duty to "prevent war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, or ethnic cleansing", up to and including waging war in the effort to effect that prevention. Of course they don't call it war, it's a "kinetic military action" (yes, that's the phrase the White House actually used in place of "war").

So now, even though Bush was an evil war monger for his doctrine of preemption, we now can go to war without there being even a scintilla of a threat to the US. Can someone tell me how that is NOT going further then Bush?

Here's my concern. Various rumblings have it that the US, in conjunction with the UN, is seeking to recognize a sovereign Palestinian state by the end of this year. We all know that the Obama administration represents a fundamental shift in US-Israeli relations. What if Palestine attacked Israel, as a sovereign state? The result will be official declarations of war between nation states. And we all know Israel will win that conflict ... unless the US has a "responsibility to protect."

And before you say "he'd never go that far", let me remind you how many times we've drawn that line and he's stepped over it, with glee.

And it doesn't have to be direct US/Israel conflict. We may simply withdraw our support. Arm the new Palestinian Army. Perhaps in the interest of "fairness" all of our strategic knowledge becomes available to both sides. There are many ways to fulfill this "responsibility." And Samantha Powers, whom is a White House foreign policy advisor and wife to "Regulation Czar" Cass Sustine, advocated that very policy. Divesting the billions in Israeli aide in favor of "investing" in a Palestinian State. She even acknowledged that it would be politically costly in the US. Tough to win Florida under those circumstances. But I'm convinced he'd accept one term in return for seeing his "fundamental transformations" take hold.

Oh, and by the way. If the thought of arming Palestinians is too much to consider, bare this in mind - SoS Clinton is to decide by tomorrow on whether we will arm the Libyan Rebels.

Do you know who they are? Because I don't. I'm sure there's fine people among them, but I also know that Al Qeada now controls a Libyan city to the South after the evacuation of Qaddafi's troops.

Something about all of this just doesn't feel right. Something is "off." My gut sees a bad moon rising.

{by the way - if you're a super computer, pulling key words and phrases out for analysis, you think this post my pop a hit on NSA or some security agency's radar? hehe}