Sorry for the lack of blogging over the past few days. I have been tied up with work, and with my lucrative side business as a ghost writer. Good money in that. Most of all, however, I have been just too angry, irritated, and sad over our action in Libya.
We are now several days into the bombing campaign, and all we have is confusion--oh, yes, and death. Our superb military have, as we all knew they would, quickly established a No-Fly Zone. Was there any doubt they could do that? Now, what? We still have no end game, no exit strategy, no answer to the question, "How do we know when we've won?" Instead, we have bombing.
President Obama has said Qaddafi must go. OK. So we're going to target him? Apparently not, except when we do, but not really. Have we gone bear hunting with the idea of wounding the bear? Who are the rebels? Does anybody really know? Who's in charge of the rebels? Anybody? What are their goals? The US wants to pass command and control, so to whom? Will it be NATO? Who provides the bulk of NATOs resources and capabilities? One guess, and the answer is not the UK, France, Italy, or Spain . . . It's a bit like arguing whether a Ford is better than a Mercury. Same factory, folks. Will it be some other harebrained scheme for collective control that will leave the US with the responsibility but not the authority? No answers, so instead we have bombing.
Above all, however, the administration has not defined our interests. What was so pressing about Libya to excuse the manner in which we got involved? Aren't the people leading the charge into the Libyan desert the same ones who spent years deriding the idea of a threat from Saddam? No answers, so instead, we have bombing.
Obama and his hopeless coterie must understand that war must form part of a policy, it is not just mindless, bored vandalism. Meanwhile, we will just keep bombing until we think of something to do . . . .
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou write of "mindless, bored vandalism" -- vandalism, presumably, of the targets of the bombs. But I can be more cynical than that about this commander-in-chief.
ReplyDeleteScrew "anger" (waste of energy IMHO). Consider this: Is he is sticking the metaphorical sword of our military into this situation, this crucible, as a form of abuse, as a form of vandalism, hoping to corrode it, hoping something will break, hoping to shake loose anything trans-nationalist propaganda can exploit? Could this have played any part in his administration's decision-making? Think Cloward–Piven. Think Alinsky. I have little doubt Obama does. He's steeped in it. Hillary, too.
I am a layman. Am I being too cynical? Too paranoid? If not 'too', can you suggest what the nation -- especially the families and friends of military members -- might do to detect and to protect against "vandalism from above"; not from the skies, but from the Obama White House?
I hope you're not right, but fear that you might be on to something . . .
ReplyDeleteWe're in Libya because Barrys friends in AQ and the muslim brotherhood were losing. Barry was hoping he could do nothing and Libya would be turned over to AQ/muslim brotherhood. After all it worked out wonderfully in Egypt.
ReplyDelete