"Hillary's War" "Obama's War"
I'm going to admit to not being bullish on U.S. involvement in this. Should the people of Libya be free to choose their own leaders and throw out a despotic madman? Absolutely. I believe that deeply in my soul. Our Country was established on just that very principle. You and I know that.
But I don't know that we should become physically involved with troops and aircraft.
In Afghanistan we clearly had national security concerns at issue. We believed we did in Iraq as well, a war I did not support starting, mostly for timing issues (Iran and the NorKs should have been dealt with first) but once we went in I support the troops and the mission and the reasons for it. And spare me the War for Oil bullshit. If oil was the motive we would have gone in, kicked the living snot outn of the Iraqis, not given a damn about collateral or civilian damage and casualties and taken the goddamned oil.
Libya is different. We have no real national security nor strategic interest there. Certainly not their oil. And we have no idea what would replace Qaddafi when he goes which could, although it's hard to believe, be worse thna he. Whether for it's own people or for the rest of the world.
Obama has just said there will be no American boots on the ground. But it's clear there wil likely be planes in the air.
How can he assure that? At what point does he issue his own "Mission Accomplished"? When Qaddafi stops flying sorties against the rebels? Afterall, if it is enforcement of a no-fly zone then that would seem to be the mission. But Iraq started as a protracted no-fly zone and we ended up with boots on the ground there. If he stops flying against the rebels what is to stop his other armed forces from rolling the tanks into Benghazi and slaughtering everyone there, enacting a scorched earth policy with a ground campaign? He's still slaughtering rebels and innocents alike just not from the air. So do we walk away then while it goes on or will we change our mission, commit ground forces in Libya while we still have unfinished business in Afghanistan and Iraq?And at a time when he wants to cut our defense budget?(nothing else, of course, just defense)
It is of our highest ideals to support aid and defend a people oppressed and trying to free themselves. But if we do it in Libya, where we have no interest, will we do it everywhere else, for anyone else who asks? And what if someone who asks is the people of China, or North Korea? Would we help them undert this new Obama Doctrine? Or are we going to pick and choose? And what if some other MENA nation decides to come to Qaddafis aid? Are we going to fight them, too? Many of them are going to be none too pleased with our meddling in yet another Islamic nation.
I realize that even without our intervention what comes after Qaddafi could be far more dangerous than he but IF we're paying attention (and that's a pretty big if) we can hopefully nip that before it blooms.
So I'm not yet sold on this one right now, my inclination is once we start we're going to get sucked in to not only helping the rebels with ground troops but then with nation building. Something the U.S. can ill afford at this time. We have far less at stake here than we do in our two current wars.
I support the idea of a no-fly zone over Libya but also agree with cjk in comments yesterday. Let the Brits and the French handle this one.
What think you?
12 comments:
The Brits and the French need to get a job and start paying some of the bills for the household of Western Civilization. The No-Fly Zone is a good start for them. They can work at that and learn some responsibility. Who knows, someday maybe, with a lot of hard work, we might even let them have a key to the store.
MR,
I concur.
I regret that Cameron was the prime mover for the no fly zone.
No way should we get involved in a civil war. How do you know that the rebels represent the majority? Be careful what you wish for.
I know you Americans don't like Gaddafi because of Lockerbie but if the islamists take over Libya there will be a lot more of that.
MR and Pasto, when the global tyranny of the UN comes to it's full flower here, and Americans decide to take to their guns, will there be a "no fly zone" over DC, or New York or any other place where American "rebels" are resisting the "will" of the international community? If we continue to support the concept of regime change to whatever the "international community" wants, then you might wind up with an Obama for life as maximum leader. Are you gentlemen prepared to live with that?
The more I think about it, Ray, the more I think like you on this. We (& you) can't get involved in every civil war that comes down the pike. We may want Q for Lockerbie but for that we could send an American Black Ops or Brit SAS team.
Morpheus -- I may be misunderstnding you but it seems you have turned it inside out. In Libya the no fly is meant to help the rebels and possibly oust Q. In your scenario it sounds like the no fly would be meant to help Obama and crush the rebels. And what makes you think Pasto or I, or anyone else here for that matter, wouldn't be among the rebels in such a scenario?
At any rate, as stated above I agree more and more with Ray. Get out of this now or you/we may be thanked for it the way the U.S. was thanked for our 80's involvement in Afghanistan.
MR, yeah sorry, I thought about it later (the reverse). The point was supporting the concept of regime change at the whims of the security council (i.e. Ghadafi bad, but Saudi can do what they like in Bahrain). I realize that no one will be clamoring for the support of American rebels wanting to dump they're government. And I wasn't suggesting you and/or Pastorius have rebel inclinations. I was just saying muscling Ghadafi can just as easily be applied to American insurrection, see?
I meant "their" government (bad spelling).
I got you, Morpheus. I don't think this is a good idea.
Anway, in your (corrected :) scenario, if it came to the U.N. pressing some kind of globalist agenda suppressing Americans and American rights supported by a U.S. admin and it came down to Johnny get your gun, well. . .
In my opinion, the efforts in the various state capitals to gut public employment is movement in the direction of the globalist agenda (divide and conquer as it were), for example. If you add high unemployment, sky-rocketing food and fuel prices and other draconian cost cutting measures federally and locally (the EU calls it "austerity measures),well, just look at the Arab street. It may take the US longer to get there, but get there we will. Chaos and unrest works in the globalists favor. Just sayin'.
I think Ray is right.
Today, on Drudge the headline was "The Third War".
And that made me realize that this is, indeed, a war. It will likely be over soon. But, there is always the chance it will turn into another Iraq, to some extent or another, where we feel the responsibility to "fix" what "we have broken."
That would be wrong. If we want to go in and bomb Libya until Ghaddafi is dead that is fine. But it is unlikely that would be our policy.
Here's the thing; this is a third war, and it's NOT OUR WAR. Our war is "the war against terrorism", otherwise known as the War against the Great Jihad. That is our war.
Of course, Barack Obama would not agree with me on that, and he is the President.
But, this is a waste of time, money and resources. Fuck Libya. The rebels call themselves "revolutionaries. Ghaddafi considers himself a Socialist. They are all on the same side; they are Socialist Islamofascists. We ought to be glad they are fighting against each other.
I still think it's a good thing France and Britain are having to take the lead and take responsibility. It's about time. The criticism of America during the Afghan and Iraq Wars was outlandish, offensive, and asinine.
This is a no brainer.
1) Plant a 'beeper'
2) Kill Qaddafi and his family unto all generations
3) Move on
50 casualties from our action
The Libyans can handle the rest
No fly zones with no specific goals?
A war?
The Romans crushed these guys with a gladius, shield, a spear and a little organization.
Kill Qaddafi. That's all there is.
Lockerbie's reckoning.
Unfortunately, foreign policy crises do not schedule themselves to happen at times when one can best handle them. Quite the opposite, in fact. While we are stretched thin, the crisis in Libya does require a US response. The American people may not want another war right now, and understandably so, but the federal government’s job is to protect the American people from predators both foreign and domestic. To do so it oftenmyst yse information and resources to which the American people are not and cannot be privy. The best way to do that is to intervene in Libya right now for relatively cheap, instead of not doing so and, in so not doing, paying a much larger price later.
Post a Comment