« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Supporting the President on Libya

By: GreyCloak (Diary)  |  March 21st, 2011 at 10:09 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

is not popular, but it ought to be considered.

Strief has an excellent post, and many comments follow it. I considered adding my own, but thought they might be lost in the fray.

I have to wonder why The President is in Rio while another airstrike is going on, but I remember that President Reagan had to be woken up to be informed that we had put a bomb through Gaddafi’s bedroom window on his orders.

The post remembers Clinton’s expedition in the Balkans, and makes some very good points as to what might happen after an intervention. Unfortunately, the results predicted more accurately describe what resulted after Gulf War I, when the Bush I administration abandoned Iraq’s Kurds in the North and Shia in the South. Both, for re-election political expediency that resulted in disaster for all concerned: the Kurds, the Shia, and Republican President George H.W. Bush.

Many of the comments demean President Obama, and I cannot but agree with some. But he is the President, the Commander-in-Chief, and no matter how long it takes him to make a decision, our Armed Forces are pledged to support him. In international measures, we should support The President, as well.

It would help if he outlined some goals: we are only there to take out Gaddafi’s air defenses and ground his airplanes. The French (who made the first strike) can blow up his tanks outside of Benghazi (they did); the Brits can launch almost as many cruise missile as we (they did), and French and British aircraft can bomb the heck out of installations, with help from B-2s out of Missouri (we all did).

The Qataris are sending aircraft, as are the UAE … the Saudis and Egyptians are preoccupied, although the Egyptians “cleaned Gaddafi’s clock” in 1977, and could easily do so again.

With a level playing field, perhaps Libya’s rebels could win … they certainly have the spirit. But the US and Europe will have to live with the result, and have perhaps taken too long to become involved.

The end-options are simple: deal with a leader who has been less than rational for forty years and now hates the West, or deal with rebels of varying backgrounds who may or may not appreciate “foreign” assistance.

In the meantime … no matter internal US politics, it is important to support The President of the United States of America, our country’ interests, and our military in foreign affairs.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

    On a more serious note, just what do we want to be the end result of this operation? When the President lays out a rational, non-contradictory mission statement, I’ll buy it?

    He has already said Gaddafi has lost the legitimacy to lead and must lead. To which Gaddafi has basically responded “You and what Army, Mr. Obama?”

    Is this a war for regime change? If so, with what do we replace the current iniquitous (redacted)?

    If this is not a war for regime change, what plausible excuse do we have to blow stuff up in Libya?

    When that gets intelligently explained, then President Obama, MAY be deserving of support.

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

    Should have read “Mr Gaddafi has lost the legitimacy to lead, and must LEAVE.”

  • Marcus_Traianus

    comparing Mr. Obama’s ill-advised, poorly planned, barely discussed, ill conceived actions in Libya which have no clear goals or clearly stated national interests with El Dorado Canyon is simply mind-boggling.

    I would presume you not only know that it was well planned, discussed with a bi-partisan group-in advance, well founded (e.g.our national interest/reasoning), had clearly stated goals and executed with the complete knowledge/involvement of President Reagan.

    It may be unintentional but your analogy makes Mr. Reagan sounds like some sleepy, old uninvolved third party IMO.

  • Common_Cents

    He is such a flip flopping liar how can you trust/support him in military action of all things.

    I feel this is a distraction from his disastrous domestic affairs.

    I cannot look at these things individually in a vacuum but rather the sum total big picture.

    Supporting oBOMBa here is like patting Dahmer on the back for helping an old lady cross the street.

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack
  • streiff

    I think it’s boneheaded and will ultimately result in our influence being reduced rather than increased. I think we’re in the process of turning that benighted country over to islamists. But we’re beyond the point of debating the wisdom of the action. The action has begun.

    Libya has echoes of Bosnia and the first Gulf War and Hungary (1956) and East Germany (1953) when witless Western governments, ours amongst them, encouraged citizens to revolt against a ruthless regime. It is unwise and borders on criminal but it happens.

    But before that support can be forthcoming we sort of need to hear what it is that we’re being asked to support. Already the air strikes have exceeded the scope of the UNSC resolution. I don’t necessarily care about that but I do need to know what the end game is in Libya.

  • YnotNOW

    but agree that we’re committed now. And doing things half-way is much worse than making a wrong choice. Finish the job (make Gaddafi assume room temperature) and then patch together the least-bad option for a government that Libya can muster.