I think my favorite word for this decade will be "squirmish" ... my favorite for the last was "strategery."
I am sorry, but our Republicans' advocacy of Mrs. Malaprop is only exceeded by their ability to create new words out of tattered cloth. Media will demean them, but these new words are valuable.
I do not know how Libya will turn out: we have (belatedly) "leveled the playing field," but it is uncertain whether the rebels and their military defectors will win, or The Government will prevail. NEXT election (in the U.S.), we will have to deal with the consequences.
President Obama Monday night spoke on the issue ... but he failed to describe any goals, provide a plan, or define an "exit strategy." He DID manage to turn over the responsibility to NATO ("not my job"), but failed to mention that much of NATO's command structure and support is provided by the U.S.A.
Media pundits, and many Republicans, have complained that Obama didn't consult Congress. He DID get a UN resolution ... when Bush I and II were in power, the Iraq wars were supported by both the UN and Congress (and even Clinton had the consolation of PUBLIC LAW 105–338—OCT. 31, 1998
IRAQ LIBERATION ACT OF 1998). OH ... I'm sorry ... Clinton never invaded Iraq ... he just invaded Somalia, Croatia, Haiti, and others without either UN or Congressional approval.
A few media reports (and Republican Congress-critters) have suggested that The President should have consulted Congress. I don't know why. Congress has not declared a war since 1942. Why bother? They are still dithering over a budget that was supposed to be passed six months ago. Other than War, the most important Constitutional obligation of Congress is "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." Where have they succeeded?
The Democrats had their chance: BOTH houses were Democrat throughout the Fall ... faced with a budget approval by September 30 (LAST Year), THEY couldn't do their jobs. Our Republicans entered office in January ... despite two weeks vacation in the first three months of a new session, the House may have done its job, but the Senate has not. Why do we pay ANY of these guys? For that matter, why do we keep electing them?
I hope the squirmish in Libya turns out ok ... our involvement has been the ideal "push button" war desired by the American populace ... no casualties other than a broken airplane and two servicemen recovered.
SOME of our voters risk their lives every day in Afghanistan, Iraq, The Mediterranean, and elsewhere. They go whereever our Presidents send them. Congress can support them or not. The rest of the armchair voters can support them or not, probably based on whatever CNN, MSNBC, or FOX says they should do.
Our Congress should represent The People, but it does not. They should make decisions, but they do not.
I have simple questions to ask of our politicians: Do you support Democracy (anywhere, in any form), or not? Are you prepared to deal with the consequences, or not? More importantly, are you able to do your job? Which is more important: your re-election, or a balanced budget? Which is more important: your re-election, or weighing in on International affairs?
I don't think politicians of any ilk can answer these simple questions ... if they did, I might vote for them.
The squirmish in Libya is far less threatening (to U.S. politicians) than squirmishes in Korea, 'Nam, or Iraq ... our President has described our intervention as (well, I still don't know) ... but our brave Republicans have countered his terrible decisions with (well, I still don't know).
"Squirmish" is a GREAT word! It is a great word for "wars undeclared" and totally avoids the "spineless" epithet that might be applied to the politicians that don't declare wars, and can't pay for them.
PS: I just LOVE the media's accounting: be it Bush or Obama, the "cost of war" is whatever we pay our military every day of the week, plus the cost of whatever missiles we bought years ago and expended.