A Few Thoughts on Libya
If you read Austin Bay’s column this morning, it painted a bleak picture for the Libyan rebels. If Gaddafi takes Tobruk, it’s all over but the mass reprisals — and there’s little reason to think Gaddafi won’t take Tobruk.
Then what?
We’ll have a pariah state with nothing to lose and lots of anger to vent against the US. But it didn’t have to be quite that way.
Normally, I wouldn’t be too concerned. Libya is small and mostly inept and thoroughly corrupt. But two things stand out. First, Gaddafi has a history of terror attacks against American and European targets. Second, President Obama demanded that Gaddafi step down, but then proved feckless when it came to taking any concrete steps to either mortally wound the regime or to materially aid the rebels.
Obama has, through his strong words and weak actions, enraged and emboldened an unstable terrorist sitting on top of vast oil wealth.
It was easy to laugh at Gaddafi’s comic-opera madness, back when we used the occasional airstrikes to keep him in line, and when he was busy taking the example set by initial Iraq invasion very earnestly.
Now, I remain opposed to American involvement in the Libyan Civil War, after some early and short-lived hoo-rah impulses. What happens in Libya does not effect US interests. But if we aren’t concerned, then it is incumbent on the President — follow me closely here — to act as though we are not concerned. If you strike at the king, you must kill him. Well, Obama struck. Weakly, briefly and hesitantly. And the king of Libya still lives.
The counter-argument is that Obama used strong words in public for domestic (and limited international) consumption, but behind the scenes worked against any strong measures — precisely because he agrees with the non-intervention position. This would be with Gaddafi’s tacit understanding that we mean him no harm, and that we should therefore expect no reprisals. And I suppose that’s fine, so far as it goes.
But others will certainly take note that, yet again, this President talks big, acts small, and can’t help himself but pee in everyone’s soup.
The inescapable conclusion is that this is a tiny man in a big office. The only comfort I can find is that the conclusion was already reached around the world long ago, and that the President’s Libya “policy” is just another confirmation of it.
To be a bit cynical about it: what the US and the West should do is to start sucking up to Kaddafi now–because it’s 99% certain that they aren’t going to do anything to topple him. It’s all been blather and hot air and temporizing. Bad enough that he’s a madman; if we start sucking up to him now, at least he won’t be a vengeful madman.
That’s not cynical, that’s just silly……and dangerous.
I beg to differ. I’m being totally cynical. What we should have done was cleaned Khaddafi’s f ____ing clock for him. We still could. But since no one–not the US, not the UN, not NATO, not France, not the Arab League–has the stones to do it, then hell yes, let’s toady to him, because he is going to be a pain in our collective asses for a long long time. In fact, after Khaddafi triumphs, slaughters thousands in Benghazi and drives many thousands more across the Egyptian border, I think we are going to see exactly that: the quietly embarassed lifting of sanctions, unfreezing of assets, etc. Who know, maybe Obama will even make an Apology Visit.
Perhaps something is changing
Let The Bombing Commence: UN Set To Impose “No Fly Zone” Over Libya http://j.mp/h19B8v
I’m not convinced we should in any way give military assistance to those mercurial dissidents/rebels/youthful-Islamists-in-waiting…..doubtless the same ones who were dancing in the streets and passing out sweets when that Lockerbie Bomber of our Pan American Airways jet was returned to Libya in triumph while being assumed to be at Death’s Door. Merciful repatriation, indeed.
If I’m not mistaken, that bomber-animal is still living.
Cleaning Qadaffi’s “clock” would be short-lived only until his successsor(s) filled that temporary vacuum. How often are we expected to repeat this “process”?
We’d only be setting ourselves up for future Islamist treachery….only a matter of time. Isolation and containment for all militant/Muslims/Islamists on the order of our strategy with the Soviets is our most sensible solution.
Also, life-saving for young American Uniformed warfighters in an alien land. No oil anywhere is worth that price.
Further, the whole of North Africa was a colonial fiefdom of France, Italy and Britain for many decades. Why is North Africa now an American responsibility? Let those with long experience in North Africa/ Middle East be “responsible”. Review that Sykes-Picot Agreement.
Perfidious politicians.
He’s still voting present, just now it gets people killed.
We should relentlessly stir up all the natural fissures between Arabs and Muslims and thus weaken the House of Islam. The Arab League came out against Kaddafi, and we should never let him forget their treachery. We should also stir up as much trouble between Iran and Saudi Arabia, making sure to always tip in favor of whoever is weak at the moment. Enabling Muslims to squander their wealth through internecine and perpetual war will deflate the winds of Jihad which they currently blow in our direction. Strive to limit Jihad to Muslim on Muslim atrocities — do as much as possible to foster their incipient fearfulness of each other, their bubbling hatefulness of each other, and their bloody violence towards each other at every turn. The House of Islam against itself is a strong weapon if cultivated properly.
As obvious as the moon in the sky, yet westerners still wring their hands as the death cult feeds on itself.
The same interventionists who bombed the Serbs for trying to stem the tide of islamic invasion as they did in the middle ages, want to install a new set of despots in Libya. It’s no accident that one of the Kosovo muslims Komrade Klinton saved murdered two of our airmen in Germany.
Let them kill each other for decades and in ever increasing numbers. Unfortunately, we won’t run out of them anytime soon.
Although most Americans cannot even imagine it … or begin to fathom the insanity of it — it seems apparent to me that our president … well, he kind of likes Gaddafi. Gaddafi, after all, called him something like, “Our Son.” Soon after, our pres, he made sure Gaddafi’s kids got $400 Million of ours for their favorite “charity” — (with our scarce funds during our recession) — such budding affection …
No doubt, Uncle Gaddafi understood that our pres just “had” to say those bad words about him in public … politics is so demanding. The proof of the pudding was that his “son” prevented anyone from doing anything to hinder ole “pops.” (Ole “pops” problem is, after all, with the American people — not their adorable boy president — so, for sure, he’ll take his revenge on us — not him.)
All of these “wink, wink” affectionate exchanges will prove out to be very cozy when the lad seeks to become a major wheeler-dealer at the UN after 2012 — and the re-empowered and popular King of Libya gives him support and praise — so, you see, it all works out for the best, doesn’t it.
[Can't help wondering if there could be any laws -- i.e. regarding all the secrets a president knows about our gov't & defense, etc. -- that would protect us in case a former president changed his nationality after leaving office -- just askin'...]
Actually, a former President HAS changed nationality after leaving office.
John Tyler was elected to the Senate of the Confederate States. He died shortly thereafter, so I don’t know if there was time for anyone to be very concerned about any precedent–but it has indeed happened.
Laws only protect you from the lawful.
I almost wish I had not found this site. The piece on Wright, Farrakhan, Gadafi and Obama is bad enough, then the last line of Aqua’s comment, “. . . if there could be any laws . . . that would protect us in case a former president changed his nationality after leaving office — just askin’…]”
I WONdered why the strange silence on Libya. It has brought me to my knees. God help us.
The Arab League came out against Qaddafi. Great. Let’s see some action then. What Obama should be doing is saying to Egypt “we paid for a lot of your modern and substantial military – time to pony up, go sort this out for us”. There’s no good reason for the US to get involved at all. It’s outsourcing time.
Egypt could roll over Libya without breaking a sweat – they have a very capable air force, including over 200 F-16s, and a thousand M1 Abrams tanks (which they manufacture under license). Given that Qaddafi is about to crush the rebels, they are the only ones who can stop it now.
I wonder what the Egyptian response was when the subject was broached.
They will never use any of that hardware except to deal with the “enemy to the northeast”.
Great article, Great comments.
What, are nuts? Half the commenters are so far around the bend it’s not funny. Aqua especially so. One wonders if he is a birther.
Stephen had it pretty much nailed with his original post. Not much else to say unless you’re into gratuitous insults.
For most of the 20th century the world looked to the USA for an example, for leadership. The cynics of the old world might shake their heads knowingly at us, but they paid attention, because what we did mattered. The upshot of the crisis in the Middle East and North Africa – Libya, the Arabs, Iran, all of it, including that perennial farce known as “the peace process” – is that the world knows (even if half the US does not) that there is no leadership in Washington. Obama has no foreign policy, he’s bored by the subject and those of his administration who do give a flying one about it are a bunch of amateurs. This means there is a power vacuum, and a vacuum is the one thing nature won’t tolerate. Gaddafi goes, Gaddafi stays, whatever. The Muslim Brotherhood is waiting in the wings. It’s their time now, all over the region, and don’t think for a minute they don’t know it.
“The inescapable conclusion is that this is a tiny man in a big office.”
That covers it neatly.
The Prince of Fools sent his SecDef (Gates) out to claim that fighting Libya would be “difficult”. That is the left’s excuse for losing wars.
Does anyone (other than America-Haters) truly believe that the USA couldn’t defeat Libya in a war? America still has the strongest, most advanced military on the planet, but Obama is hesitant to use it. He might “offend” the enemy.
We could beat Libya in a week. We could have beaten North Viet Nam in 6 months. We did beat North Korea in 1951. Thanks to the democrat-socialists, however, the USA managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Obama is simply carrying on the democrat-socialist tradition of losing. Unfortunately, his self-centered, self-righteous ego centrism is costing people their lives. And I’ll bet the Prince of Fools doesn’t lose a wink of sleep over that.
The irony now is Obama will have to use the military one day to be beleived, since he won’t be taken seriously using the threat of force. I don’t want to militarily intervene in Libya, but I wish we had a president that would present a serious position on it. Who the f**k knows what President Idiot wants. Any dimestore despot can flip us off and be secure in the comfort Obama will say little, maybe wag his finger.
The brutal conflict in war torn Libya is not between good and evil. It’s between evil men fighting for the triumph of their evil dreams. Obama’s inaction is serving us well. What we don’t need now is a third war in the Moslem world unless it’s against an existential threat.
Are the rebels good or bad? We don’t know. It’s a risk, a risk of putting Islamic terrorists in charge of a country. But we do have a known. We know that Gaddafi is a weird hybrid Islamic-AfricanNationalist-Marxist terrorists.
I say, take the risk and bomb the known terrorists. Kill the one who has American blood on his hands (I will not forget or forgive the Berlin disco bombing that killed two US Marines).
Instead of a Commander-in-Chief we have a Coward-in-Chief. The Whine has somehow found a way to make me even more disgusted with him.
Don’t confuse treason with cowardice. A traitor may be a coward, or he may be very courageous.
He’s still a traitor.
I vote The Whine is both.
I love it:
“But others will certainly take note that, yet again, this President talks big, acts small, and can’t help himself but pee in everyone’s soup.”
100% accurate description of everything this a-hole does. On the lighter side, though nothing this fool does is funny or even the least bit entertaining, how many legitimate golfers out there have had their tee times screwed up when this moron decides to see how many mulligans he can get away with.
I can’t help but think there is a typo in these polls about bozObama’s approval rating, that is to say, someone is leaving out the minus (-) symbol before the 44% approval. Sounds more accurate to me anyway.
If those countries who want a no-fly zone don’t have aircraft carriers (or won’t take them out of storage) then nothing will be done.
You don’t get it, do you? The UN resolution is supposed to be an “international law” dispensation for the US Navy and Air Force to do their dirty work without threat of action by the Hague after the fact. The Zeropeans were never supposed to get THEIR hands bloodied.
If a no-fly zone is declared, I assume that Lybian friends and supporters of Obama will be able to purchase waivers, ala ObamaCare waivers?
Like, “C’mon, son, eat’cher oatmeal.”, I did get a kick out of our President’s essential reasoning as to why Gadafi should step down: “It’s the right thing to do.”, my gosh, . . . talk about’cher failures to correctly apprehend and address, . . . sheesh, . . . I almost rolled onto the floor, . . . kinda sad—ain’t it, . . . the once great nation?