« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Libya Just Isn’t Worth US Military Casaulties

“Qaddafi has lost the legitimacy to lead and… must leave.”

-President Barack Obama (HT: Business Insider)

With all due respect to our nation’s Commander-In-Chief, I fail to remember when Qaddafi’s rule in Libya had any profound legitimacy that extended beyond the maximum effective range of an AK-47 Assault Rifle. Qaddafi, and his pathetic side-kick and strip-club drinking buddy, Hugo Chavez, remind me of what the portrait would have looked like if Dorian Gray had an identical twin. Yet I snark and I quibble. Qaddafi has ruled Libya for more than forty years. If there weren’t any actual, suffering human beings there, I’d feel moral satisfaction in concluding that he was welcome to it.

Yet the destruction of this man’s cruel, inhumane and stupid regime will have negative externalities for everyone else in the world. Given that much the same could be said of his continuing rule, I don’t see how much in Libya will probably change from Qaddafi taking a well-deserved rest from continued respiration. A powerful American force looms over the horizon and Libyan rebels are asking for the help of an American President – George H. W. Bush.

“Bring Bush! Make a no fly zone, bomb the planes,” shouted soldier-turned-rebel Nasr Ali, referring to a no-fly zone imposed on Iraq in 1991 by then U.S. President George Bush.

(LMAO HT: Rueters)

And yet a massive engagement with another civil war is about the last thing our nation needs heaped upon the plate. Our economy remains dismal. The lay-offs seem to have ended, but the replacement jobs are not being created to reabsorb the access workforce. A brutally cruel utilitarian may remark that this would be a perfect time to tack on five more US Marine Divisions and put them to work.

However, the USMC has been to the Shores of Tripoli before, the hospitality stank. We have lost absolutely nothing that necessitates sending the US military there to fetch it back. Unlike President Thomas Jefferson, Barack Obama has no overriding casus bellum that justifies feeding American soldiers into yet another desert meat-grinder.

Some will claim that we could suffer from Libya’s oil supply going offline. Europe certainly would. Italy, France and Spain all three rely on Libya as a lowest cost provider in much the same way the United States benefits when we can buy petroleum from either Mexico or Canada. If President Sarkozy were discussing this issue, “No Blood for Oil” would not be an amusing thing to tell him.

The United States could withstand losing Libya. All we have to do is convince President Obama and secretaries Chu and Salazar, to undo much of the current administration’s energy policies. We could replace Libya’s contribution by bringing assets in Alaska, South Dakota and The Gulf of Mexico on line at a more rapid rate. Our problems compound if things keep getting worse in Saudi Arabia.

Take Saudi Arabian oil offline tomorrow, and as Al Stewart once sang, “The World Comes to Riyadh.” In the event that we have to launch an all-out military assault to prevent that unfortunate likelihood, we had better not be wasting our access capacity in the desert wastes of Libya. The USS Kearsarge should be held back in ready alert just in case.

While Qaddafi has more problems than the current DSM has identified metrics to diagnose, we should carefully step back and ask ourselves who we would be assisting if we shove Old Evil out the window in condign fashion. One ironic beneficiary could very well be a new Islamic Emirate decreed by none other than Al-Qaeda. Details follow below.

“Al-Qaeda has established an emirate in Derna led by Abdelkarim al-Hasadi, a former Guantanamo detainee,” Khaled Khaim said. “They have an FM radio station and have begun to impose the burqa” (head-to-toe covering for women) and have “executed people who refuse to cooperate with them.” Khaim said Hasadi has a lieutenant, “also a member of al-Qaeda and named Kheirallah Baraassi” in al-Baida.

(HT:Hurriyet Daily News)

In fairness, others in Libya deny these claims and state they are Qaddafi’s efforts to scare foreign governments from supporting his opponents. Qaddafi is an evil enough man so that I can’t dismiss this rebuttal out of hand. Yet it still begs the question. Who are the Marines aboard the Good Ship Kearsarge supposed to be shooting at again?

Libya has descended into a nightmarish civil war. It exports a lot of oil. Its people suffer terribly at the hands of its insane and evil government. All of these problems seem to suggest a call to military intervention that very few previous American Presidents have easily resisted.

However, America’s military is already heavily committed to military combat operations all over the Middle East. We have one readily available major unit of action in reserve right now that I know of, aboard the USS Kearsarge; off the coast of Libya. The cynics viewing this year’s Arab revolutions from afar have declared Saudi Arabia “in play”. The Marines aboard the Kearsarge would save us much more grief securing the oil in Saudi Arabia (if it gets that bad) than they would if the returned to the fabled Shores of Tripoli.

A large number of people, both here and abroad, will pressure President Obama to break some hearts, break some heads and commit American military might to sorting out the ineluctable mess enveloping the nation of Libya. In this case, as an exception, I would find no fault in my President if he chooses his status quo method for handling any sort of crisis. I would totally respect and defend a command decision from the White House to vote “Present” and keep American Marines out of this mess he inherited from Qaddafi in Libya. While imposing a No-Fly Zone may become a humanitarian necessity, if there is no way to avoid it, I in no way want to see large-scale American combat power committed to such an unrewarding and futile adventure. Libya Just Isn’t Worth Military Casaulties.

COMMENTS

  • doncorleone

    “I have a bad feeling about this”. han, luke, leia, enumerous times.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      who said something similar to Gen. Custer after they scouted the terrain?

      • CJB68
  • usadying

    He sticks his nose up in the air and sounds like a petulant school boy. I am also disgusted that he is sending military planes to transport Libyan refugees, but could only muster up a ferry to rescue American citizens…a ferry that couldn’t even get out of the harbor.

    • msctex

      . . .it may well be his sending a water taxi into a war zone to rescue American citizens. As if “Carteresque”were something to strive for.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      “What has Barack Obama ever done?”

  • Tbone

    a national leader systematically subjugates the population, endorses the murder of innocents, bankrupts his Country’s treasury, creates ad hoc executive positions for his cadre of lackies, enters into spurious alliances with totalitarian dictators, authorizes military strikes against unarmed foreign civilians, abandons the Rule of Law in favor of rule by declaration, empowers an army of of uniformed thugs to intimately search the persons of the people all the while living lavishly on the public purse.

    If so, I would expect Obama to arrested at the next meeting of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    • Vegas_Rick
    • acat
    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)
    • aesthete

      that paragraph describes pretty much every President of the post-WWII era: a difference of degree *is* a difference in kind, and the degree to which murderous dictators do all of the things on your list (and more!) makes a comparison to a US President hollow (no matter how awful said President is). Let’s not become like the left in proclaiming our political opponents to be the new Hitler; the truth is bad enough.

    • CJB68

         I fully expect the Congress to at least try that before 2012 is out, if any of this escalates beyond what it’s doing now.  I just don’t have much hope in the Senate going along with it, unless they read the writing on the wall and realize that their chances of re-election just got torpedoed along with the employment prospects and standard of living for 98% of their electorate as a consequence.

         The question, of course, will always remain as to which dictator we’re willing to support.  In the past, we had to support anti-communist dictatorships, where no option for a representative government existed.  However, we do know what dictators that “progressives*” like Obama will support, and what forms of government they’re likely to throw under the dictators’ tanks.

      (* God, I’m beginning to hate that word!  “Progressive” is a term that I’d rather see applied to a form of music, or to describe certain diseases.  The only progress I see here is a reversion back to feudal overlordship.)

  • Doc Holliday

    We should take out his air defenses, we should implement a no fly zone. We should take Qaddaffi and the Lockerbie bomber if at all possible, but only with SF, and only when the time is right.

    There is one War on Terror. All military operations are dangerous, including training operations, but there is no realistic scenario where an air only operation would cause many American casualties.

    Of course we should not put troops on the ground, and we should never nation build again. It is true ghaddaffiesss, replacements could be worse, but that is not our problem.

    • Raven

      In the occupation phase.

      Of course, we Could always just go in and blow everything up and then watch whatever country was the recipient of that treatment turn into Afghanistan.

      Personally, I prefer the post-WWII occupation/”nation-building” of Germany and Japan and what that led to.
      You?

      • The_Gadfly

        By my rough calculations, it will take about 50 years of carefully shepherded intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan to establish functioning democratic governments. Same thing will apply to Libya, and wherever else we wind up needing to go in the Middle East to stop WWIII. Not all of that will be military intervention, but it will cost time, money, blood, sweat, and tears. Which means we have to be ready to commit to it fully before we go in, unlike Powell in Iraq for the First Gulf War.

        God knows I want the Libyan Thug brought before the US people* for Lockerbie and other things he’s done. But that doesn’t mean the cost might not be too high.

        *you’ll note please that I said people and not courts.

        • Doc Holliday

          if we did actually capture the colonel and the bomber, it would reassert our power in a region that cares of nothing but. It would be worth it to do the right thing. Again, I am not talking a bunch of troops on the ground.

      • aesthete

        in that it doesn’t really leave much doubt that war sucks and (more specifically) that war with the US sucks. There was recently an interview with one of the Iraqis who provided the US with inaccurate information regarding the status of Iraq’s WMD program; he said that he lied and over-exaggerated Iraq’s program so that the US would invade and make his country better. I don’t want those type of incentives, and “nation-building” facilitates perverse incentives. Good luck building democracies in places like Iraq and Afghanistan through bureaucratic fiat; I want no part in it, for myself.

        • Raven

          Of course, if we’d carpet bomb our enemies Before we rebuild them, they won’t consider the price worth the product.

      • Doc Holliday

        when you are dealing with inherently civilized countries such as Japan and Germany, nation building works. Now I clearly said “inherently” civilized, we all agree both nations acted like dogs in WW2. Think of it like a generally educated person that joins a cult and then finally is snapped out of it. I mean, let’s face it, Japan and Germany did most of the work in their rehabilitation. We had the forces, but people were not laying IED’s for troops.

        I just don’t believe we can nation build in the Islamic world. Or to be more precise, the proof is in the pudding. If the people who replace the Colonel show they are serious about a secular, free society, than sure we can help them out with advisers, etc.

        The Islamic world today seems more like a systematic, chronic, malignancy we are just going to have to live with to some extent. For example, retailers know they can’t end shoplifting. They then decide how much to spend on security to lower shoplifting rates to a manageable level.

        I don’t think we can “fix” the Middle East until the day they decide to fix themselves. Hell Mexico is a major economy with a long history of culture and knowledge, yet it is still a basket case corrupt to the core. We can’t fix them, and we likely can’t fix Libya.

        But if we do provide help to protect the people revolting in Libya, and we DO NOT make a footprint there, we could at least get some points from some of them.

        There was a recent article I will try to find and link from a reporter that has been to Afghanistan something like 14 times, always out with the troops. He saw the troops protect the people, he saw them high five the kids, give them candy etc. Yet when an American Humvee was blown up by an IED, those same people jumped on it, chanting like maniancs “allah akbar!” Some people just can not be fixed.

        • Doc Holliday

          by former Reagan official Bing West. Here is one of many reviews you can get on the net. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/04/AR2011030403324.html His book is being praised for describing the problem with nation building and fighting a war with weak rules of engagement, something I talked about here http://www.redstate.com/conservativecurmudgeon/2011/02/27/february-28-1991-the-end-of-operation-desert-storm-and-the-20-years-after/#comment-650

          • Raven

            An ineffective occupation and insufficient control over the entire apparatus of government in the occupied nation is the other.

            We didn’t screw around in Germany and Japan. WE ran their entire governments from the ground up for 5 years after the war. Every single aspect of their governments. Local, province, national, post office, police, everything.
            We haven’t done that in the middle east. Nor have we beaten them down the way we did those 2 countries. It takes both parts.

            Have to break their spirit completely and then reshape it to our liking.
            We have not even Attempted either in the middle east.

          • aesthete

            In Germany, we rushed de-nazification and installed members of the Nazi party as part of the post-war government there: the federal republic established was similar in character to the Weimar Republic with some tweaks here and there.

            In Japan, we re-established the model created by the Meiji Restoration; again, some tweaks here and there, but pre-existing institutions were mostly preserved (with the exception of the army, of course).

            In both cases, we’re talking about countries that already had democracies miles ahead of neighboring countries, and that simply had to be, as you might put it, pounded into submission. In the case of Afghanistan and Iraq, not so much (though Iraq at least had, and still has, a fighting chance). You don’t hear our failures in the Philipenes or Haiti mentioned nearly as much as you do Germany or Japan, but we have more examples of failure at constructing government out of whole cloth than success. The only example that I can think of where democratic institutions were created out of whole cloth which did not become a mess was S Korea, and there are a number of factors that make it an untenable model for the vast majority of countries suggested for “nation-building”. As savage as it sounds, pounding an enemy into submission, punitive invasion, and other forms of warmaking that avoid touchy-feely stuff are often necessary.

            The world sucks, but that’s not our fault: it’s certainly not our responsibility to fix countries that were broken long before we got there, and that will remain broken no matter how much money and time we toss their way (i.e., Afghanistan). That’s not a slam on our troops, who do great work on a daily basis in places that the minions of hades themselves dare not tread. It’s simply a recognition that we cannot turn water into wine, and that we cannot transform a culture through bureaucratic decree. If establishing a democracy in a region is the option among several others that seems optimal for our long-term interests when one makes a sober judgment taking in costs and benefits, that is fantastic: I love our system and it is great that the world is coming around to supporting democracy and free markets. If the costs are prohibitive and the benefits negligible, that’s too bad, but our foreign policy is not, and should not be run in the best interests of foreigners.

        • The_Gadfly

          Both countries were more than willing to gin up an incident to start the mass slaughter of civilians. That is simply NOT civilized.

          We civilized them by carpet bombing back to the stone age so they would remember what we could do, then building them up again and showing them how they should live.

          I’ll also note that our forces haven’t left either country, instead their purpose for being there changed.

  • Adjoran

    Gaddafi is our enemy, but so are the rebels. Our only interests here are keeping oil flowing and hoping to contain the “Arab street” from going nuts in the friendlier states.

    Libyan oil mainly goes to France and Italy, so let them step up and do whatever is necessary to protect their own supply.

    • streiff

      were it up to me I’d make sure both sides were armed to the teeth.

      • Tbone

        set to April 1st.

        • acat

          but there’d be a mess of “green” jobs .. cleaning up the radioactive debris… from the oil fields…

          Mew

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            Or Iran or Lebanon for that matter. And don’t clean up anything. Slant drill.

          • acat

            Under Colin Powel’s “you break it you bought it” policy …if there’s no Libyan EPA, we’ll have to build one. I nominate Tbone to run it.

            Mew

          • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

            He spray a metric ton of DDT on every village in the countryside. Instant no fly zone!

          • Tbone

            Gotta test stuff on rats first. Rules are rules.

          • Raven

            [shudder]

          • Tbone
          • acat

            I figure it can’t do as bad a job as the idjits and political hacks have done…

            Mew

          • kestrel

            especially for one in its condition.

  • Tbone

    and maybe you’ll find there is someone else just as worrisome.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/quiz/2011/mar/01/muammar-gaddafi-charlie-sheen-quiz

    I will say this about Omar, he is the only person I have seen that looks old enough to be Keith Richards father.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      between Sheen’s Right Ear and his Left.

  • IJB

    You obviously have more faith in Qaddafi’s forces than I do.

    • Doc Holliday

      the Luftwaffe and British Air Force circa 1939.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      laughed and said the same stuff about conducting a raid in SOmalia back in the 90′s.

      • lunaticrex

        seems to me a similar place to Tripoli today. A tanker I knew a few years ago was there. He never told me his troopers were taking the invasion lightly. Pundits likely were, yes. But not Soldiers. Warriors cultivate a habitual wariness regarding any contact. It is true, as strieff says below, the enemy has a vote. And usually at least an AK. People who have never been there might scoff at a light weapon such as a Kalashnikov versus an M-1 Abrams. I can tell you, when one is “in the s**t,” one does not scoff. One takes cover and returns fire. And hopes to survive.

        Whether the U.S. should invade Libya is an issue I can hardly believe is being discussed. I concur with those here who believe this issue would be best left to those with vital national interests in the region (IT, FR, EU, whatever). Nothing good can come from a U.S. or U.S.-led coalition putting boots on the ground in Libya.

    • streiff

      There is no doubt that generally speaking the Libyan armed forces are pretty contemptible.

      Having said that, remember the Serbs succeeded in bringing down an F-117 with very low tech weapons.

      All you need is just a little bit of bad luck and things can go south rather quickly.

      • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

        with big slingshots and rocks.

  • Getting_Back_to_Basics

    until our national interests are directly at stake and I don’t see that right now. And frankly, it seems to me that should the U.S. oust him, then that will continue to fan the flames throughout the region. And then what will we do when the rebellion hits Saudi Arabia? Would we support the rebellion and drive gas to $8 or support the Saudis and spend hundreds of billions in war. The U.S. should stay out.

  • arrowshot

    Daffy still has several tons of it and I imagine it might be why we are holding back on doing anything else. Imagine SF is already there looking for some staff members to ease Daffy along into permanent retirement.

  • gawken

    Last night on the tube saw several clips of the rebels. Chaotic, disorganized, all sorts of equipment. Seemingly lacking in tactical leadership. But all highly motivated against Qadafi.

    It would seem, assuming that we have any contact with any of the rebel forces, that a few SF A-teams, inserted with the rebels, would be a huge force multiplier. And they woudl be a very low profile US committment.Qadafi doesn’t have an army, per se..he has roving bands of thugs and mercenaries along with some tribal units. They are vulnerable to any group with some organization and tactics..which the SF teams could provide.

    Worst case, we help bring Qafafi down sooner, saving lots of civilian lives. Best case…it helps us with whoever emerges as the new leadership in Libya. I’m in no way attempting to minimize risk/danger to the troops, butthe teams can be monitored by UAVs, satellites, and in any sign of trouble, could be exfiltrated. Air power could supress any rebels and allow for choppers to bring them out.

    Risk/reward seems very favorable.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      These two seem to be the largest and best organized groups of anti-Qaddafi Insurgents at present.

    • aesthete

      and no non-state actors that would make for good partners, it would just be Black Hawk Down Pt 2.

      There are some things that America cannot solve. That’s life.

  • gawken

    Last night on the tube saw several clips of the rebels. Chaotic, disorganized, all sorts of equipment. Seemingly lacking in tactical leadership. But all highly motivated against Qadafi.

    It would seem, assuming that we have any contact with any of the rebel forces, that a few SF A-teams, inserted with the rebels, would be a huge force multiplier. And they woudl be a very low profile US committment.Qadafi doesn’t have an army, per se..he has roving bands of thugs and mercenaries along with some tribal units. They are vulnerable to any group with some organization and tactics..which the SF teams could provide.

    Worst case, we help bring Qafafi down sooner, saving lots of civilian lives. Best case…it helps us with whoever emerges as the new leadership in Libya. I’m in no way attempting to minimize risk/danger to the troops, butthe teams can be monitored by UAVs, satellites, and in any sign of trouble, could be exfiltrated. Air power could supress any rebels and allow for choppers to bring them out.

    Risk/reward seems very favorable.

  • seisner01

    You are dead wrong on this one … If no one helps shepard the transition, Lybia will become the next Iran. Look what Jimmy Carter did (did not do) and the grevious results.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      I thinkwe have bigger fish to fry than this. I think we are doing more with less than we can continue to afford to. Eventually, we will not be able to save everybody. We need to make choices. I’m more worried about Saudi and Kuwait undergoing revolution than Libya. If SA and K go offline, that’s over 60% of OPEC’s oil that no longer makes it to market.

      • Raven

        Problem solved.

        • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

          However, I don’t think we can just replace what Saudi Arabia or Kuwait provides. We could drill our own and do a lot more to get Iraq pumping again, but if Saudi goes down, it will hard to afford a long daily commute.

          • Raven

            Not counting OCS or even shallow water.

            That’s according to the DOE. Go through their list and just add it up.
            190 Billion Barrels in the “empty” fields of Texas (recoverable at $60/bbl). 80 Billion in Montana and the Dakotas. Those are just the two biggest. With numerous smaller fields with as much as 30 billion barrels apiece.
            Plus the ocean wells.

            Oh, yeah. We can make up for losing Saudi Arabia. Or Mexico. Or Venezuela.
            We drill our own oil, we destroy every oil-producing enemy we have.

          • hoosierteacher

            We often hear calls to open up the reserves when prices go up. I don’t think that $4 dollar a gallon gas is an emergency that neccesitates opening the reserves. It would buy a lot of votes, but would also leave us depleted in a real emergency.

            We should drill our own oil, and we should lift the restrictions on building refineries; that’s the free market solution. We should probably keep importing some oil as well. But unless OPEC or a foreign power shuts off the oil supply, I don’t think horrible prices for oil and gasoline justify opening our emergency reserves.

            If we see a Chinese or Russian takeover of the middle east, or OPEC states taken over by radical Islamists (instead of the money hungry dictators in power now) that attempt to completely shut off our supply, I’ll be in favor of opening the spigot. But even then, I would want the oil dedicated to our military and emergency services, not for our own private use.

            Just my opinion.

          • Raven

            I’m talking about what’s still in the ground. Different thing altogether.

          • Raven

            I’m not talking about opening the nation oil reserve. I’m talking about drilling in ANWR, Bakken, restoring major production in the “dry” Texas fields. Among numerous other, smaller fields. Not to mention OCS and the Gulf…

      • The_Gadfly

        what if taking out the Libyan thug sends a clear message and prevents the need to go into Saudi Arabia?

        Yeah, I’ve had a bad feeling about this since the beginning too. And for a change I’m glad I don’t have to be the one to decide.

        It still looks to me like what is happening in the Middle East is only staged to look spontaneous to the cretins in the Lamestream Media and apparently our State Department. The question thus becomes at what point do you apply pressure to achieve maximum effect. By the time they get to Saudi Arabia, it may be too late to stop the momentum. Heck, since we didn’t intervene in Egypt it may already be too late.

  • seisner01

    he US does not assert itself here, Lybia will become another Iran.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      We have 3 options here.

      1) Support Qaddafi and help him strafe people.
      2) Support AQ’s New Emirate while we simultaneously wage war against them in Iraq and Afghanistan.
      3) Support the MB and just accept that they favor forced clitorectomies and stoning adulterous women. (Of course that won’t play well in Iraq and Afghanistan where we’ve promising all the oppressed women that held up their purple fingers after voting that this sort of thing would never happen to their daughters.)

    • streiff

      who could we possibly sponsor as a successor regime that would be better than the current one.

      One has to assume the opposition are islamists because it is nearly impossible for a democratic leaning group to organize in a police state.

    • aesthete

      completely and totally controls every public institution in Libya, to the extent where there really are no developed institutions in Libya: no charitable institutions, no Chamber of Commerce type orgs, nothing. Terms like “the middle class” have no meaning in a country that is thoroughly controlled by one man, and where the opposition has never had a way to represent themselves. Look at the places that have overthrown Ghaddafi: they’re in complete anarchy, and might be AQ ruled (a debatable point, admittedly).

      There is no realistic endgame that has the country looking better (much less a plan to get us to such an endgame), and to quote Towelie from South Park, we have no idea what’s going on: those are bad conditions for invasion or SF teams. As Rumsfeld might put it, the unknown unknowns and the known unknowns are incredibly prohibitive right now; just a month ago, the optimists were hoping that Ghaddafi’s son with the charity might step in and moderate the regime. There was absolutely no one who anticipated non-state actors overthrowing their chains, and whatever anyone says, no one has a clue about conditions on the ground in Libya, political conditions, and other factors. Right now, it would just be stupid to commit US forces (which means that Obama is probably seriously considering it).

  • tomarmstrong

    Casualties, not casaulties… otherwise, a well written article, and I agree with the premise…

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      For the correction, and the kind words..

  • silkywiley

    The impulse to go rushing in where angels fear to tread is an American impulse. We should have left Afghanistan within a year after we went in and set up a massively fortified base with air patrol of the country and the Pakistan border. We should now be disabused of the idealistic “nation building” scenario. But even better would have been a complete withdraw and then observation and return to wipe out any obvious terrorist camps and then a complete block out of visas and immigration from the entire middle east. We can’t understand or fix this culture. It will have to happen internally, if it ever does. Otherwise just admit that some cultures are anti-human and anti-life. We have a culture right on our southern border that is devolving into chaos and inhuman behavior. We better start thinking about what we are going to do there.

    Iraq was the only logical battle front selected in this war in the middle east, that’s why I believe it was selected by the military. After 30 years we needed to do something to push back. Iraq was and still is the counterbalance to Iran. The country had four highways, air fields, a more secular and educated population than most of the middle east. It was possible for a civil society there.
    The US population was repulsed by Saddam and his son, but to the Arab world they were perfectly acceptable and are probably being sung about even now around the Bedouin campfires. They were devils but they were the middle east’s own devils.

    In Libya we would see more of our warrior children beheaded and mutilated. (Mutilation of corpses is prohibited by the Quran) which proves that most of them don’t even read their own holy book or know the difference between the authentic teachings of Mohammad and the fraudulent additions in their three books.

    If Obama steps on it and into this one, I will know for sure that his much ballyhooed intelligence is just another political fabrication

    • aesthete

      but the rest is spot on, IMO: Bush and co are just wrong about the capacity for democracy and ordered liberty in the ME, full stop. Even if they were not, it is high time that we get honest about being self-interested in the foreign arena; altruism is admirable at an individual level, but folly always ensues when we apply it to the dealings of nation-states.

  • silkywiley

    Although I suggested a complete blockout of visas and immigration from the middle east, I know that is not possible, due to commerce, etc. But we still have a very open policy regarding travel into our country from the middle east. This has to be far more stringent than it currently is and unfortunately our open southern border is likely the entry point for logistics and material for the next large terrorist attack on the US.

  • http://opinerlog.blogspot.com jdelaney3

    Purely from the standpoint of geo-political self-interest, it may be strategically prudent for the US to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya. Why? Good PR which might actually affect the political outcome not only in Libya but throughout the Middle East. And American casualties would most likely be nil.

    Sitting on the sidelines spouting encouragement may not effectively serve to stop Jihadists from taking over after Qaddafi is out. A forceful show of support might actually tip the balance in favor of the truly democratic forces taking over.

    Something to seriously weigh.