I supported the war in Afghanistan: we were attacked from there by Osama Bin Laden and his Taliban hosts. Our attackers needed to pay for their evil deeds. I just wanted them dead, I never wanted to turn them into democrats. Nation-building is too expensive in terms of both money and American blood.
I was puzzled and less than lukewarm by the decision to invade Iraq, as I didn't see any compelling need for it. (Once in, however, I supported and continue to support our troops and their mission.)
However, I have been against the intervention in Libya from the start, and for these reasons:
1. It isn't our fight. I don't see that there is anything to gain for American interests.
2. We don't know who the players are or what they represent. We don't know if they rebels are better, the same or worse than the dictator they seek to overthrow. Talk about "democracy" is likely to just be propaganda and not a firm basis for our intervention.
3. We have no clear-cut role or mission. What exactly are we trying to accomplish there? How do we know when we're finished?
4. If the rebels cannot defeat Gaddafi by themselves, we will be pressured to commit troops. If we don't commit the troops and the rebels lose, Gaddafi will be out for revenge and a large massacre of the rebels will follow (like what happened following the first Iraq war when we abandoned those who had relied on us).
5. If the rebels cannot win on their own and we do not commit troops, the rebels will be defeated and it will be a major propaganda coup for Gaddafi and militant Islam. They can brag that they defeated a western-backed force.
6. If we do commit troops, there will be more American deaths and billions more spent on war. Libya isn't worth the price.
In short, we have very little to gain and a lot to lose. I am all for a long-term plan for disempowering militant Islam (pardon the redundancy), for isolating Muslim nations from the west and taking away their economic power (through energy independence), and for separating the civilized world from the barbaric, so the latter cannot harm us further. This plan would probably include military action in certain circumstances, but we should choose our fights carefully. The Libyan intervention is not one of these.
See report linked from Drudge here.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
sounds as if you are portraying this as another Viet Nam situation, Stogie.
and we might debate the justification of the Afghanistan situation or the Iraq situation also.
in my opinion, we were more justified in Iraq than in Afghanistan. but, of course, those three situations are not relevant to the issue of Libya.
the outcome will determine whether or not it is beneficial or not as is the case of any military action in history.
Griper, with that logic, we should just invade Canada; if it proves beneficial, then we can conclude it was justified.
Stogie,
don't take my words out of context.
"justification" is determined in debate prior to a declaration of war or military engagement and is the responsibility of Congress or in the case of libya, the Security Counsil of the U.N.
the big problem with justification is the fact that there will always be those who consider any particular war as justified while others will deem it as unjustified.
this is true of any and every war where people have the right of free speech and free will.
the "benefits" or "consequences" is determined by the outcome of every war or military engagement.
since Obama has already began military engagement then the only thing left to be determined is whether or not it will be beneficial to us and the world along with the people of Libya and be beneficial to the rest of the nations of the middle east.
and only the future can determine that.
remember this. just because a war may be justified that doesn't automatically mean that in the engagement of it will be beneficial for justified parties.
so, unless you see something i missed in my explanation, my logic is consistant.
Stogie,
I agree on all points.
For weeks now, I have been asking, "Just who are these rebels?"
Griper, clearly this "war" on Libya (if it can even be called a war) is neither justified nor in the strategic interests of the United States. All we did was waste millions of dollars in cruise missiles.
Part of Obama's reasoning was that we whiny Americans would rally around the flag once the Tomahawks started flying. In the rush of patriotic passion and renewed loyalty as a result of a new enemy to hate, Americans would go for Obama's socialistic agenda.
After all, it worked for Bush. He was able to push through new Federal powers in the wake of his wars, and almost got his amnesty for illegal immigrants bill passed.
Thanks AOL. I see many prominent conservatives are now making the same point, that the Libyan incursion was a total waste of money and will accomplish nothing good.
Old Rebel, I think you are right about Obama attempting a "wag the dog" scenario and an attempt to incite some misguided patriotism.
However, I think Bush was sincere in his belief that the Iraq war would do some good. He believed that "democracies don't commit agression" and that a large democracy in the heart of the Middle East would encourage other countries there to moderate. It was a naive belief, to be sure, but one that was without darker motivations.
Also, I am unaware that Bush caused us to lose any freedoms. I assume you are talking about the totally benign Patriot Act, for which no one has ever provided any evidence, explanation or logic showing how it has deprived anyone of any freedoms. I'd be happy to read such an exposition if one exists.
Stogie,
The Patriot Act attempts to bypass the 4th amendment's requirements of "reasonable" searches and warrants. With that act, the Feds can search you and your premises as long as they say it's related to terror.
And here's our old buddy Mark Potok assuring Americans that the "radical right" (that is, anyone who disagrees with him) is a greater domestic terror threat than Muslims:
http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2011/20110307063129.aspx
And wouldn't you know the SPLC now has official ties with the unconstitutional Department of Homeland Security?
I for one don't like the idea of the socialist Obama having that much arbitrary power. It's the Fed's claim to those powers, not the abuse of those powers, that should concern us. After they start wielding those nifty new powers, it's too late.
old reb,
the government has always had the right to search without a warrant if they could show a imminent possibility of danger to life.
the only question tho, does a terrorist threat constitute an imminent danger to life?
The Griper,
But when a LEO is in "hot pursuit," he is doing so because he is aware of "probable cause." The USA Patriot Act, on the other hand, eliminates probable cause as a legal necessity.
That's too much power over us. The Founders would say their grand project is a failure.
Post a Comment