If Obama felt that way three weeks ago, why did it take him until four days ago to launch attacks? What was the wait? Some have written that it was too little, too late. And why the complete silence with the American people or, at the very least, Congress?
What is the vision for this engagement? Hayley Peterson writes, "The Obama administration has yet to endorse any particular group to take control of Libya, despite its clear rejection of the current regime of President Moammar Gadhafi."
Donald Douglas at American Power is noticing the lack of Americans rallying around this president as we go into yet another war situation halfway around the world. He writes:
This is strange. One of the most common phenomena of public opinion and war is for the public to rally dramatically behind the president upon the commitment of U.S. troops to action. But according to polls on President Obama's use of force against the Gaddafi regime in Libya, this administration's action is seeing the lowest "rally 'round the the flag" effect compared to at least nine military operations since President Reagan's bombing raid against Gaddafi in 1986. See Gallup, "Americans Approve of Military Action Against Libya, 47% to 37%." Today 47 percent back Obama's authorization of force against Libya, whereas in 1986 a whopping 71 percent supported President Reagan's decision to strike Gaddafi's compound during Operation El Dorado Canyon.Obama went into his presidency promising the liberals he would get out of the war game. Not only did he not do as they wanted and get out of Afghanistan, he didn't close Gitmo as they wanted, and now he has actually engaged in another military action. Check out Mark Tapscott's article on the Top 10 names Obama didn't give this military engagement.
Americans are confused. Why go into Libya as opposed to, say, Egypt or any of the other hot spots around the world? They are waiting for answers as this president continues his silence and American war planes go where they're directed by this commander-in-chief.