More Questions About Libya
The Libyan operation, as Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) said on yesterday's Fox News Sunday, is not about protecting American interests. This is about Obama's desire to subordinate American power to the "international community." He was maneuvered into this action by the Europeans, the Arab League, and the ladies on his national security team led by Hillary Clinton.
Our prestige -- assuming this President has any left -- was put on the line two weeks ago, after Obama said Gaddafi "must" go. Then he dithered. And now that the shooting has started, Obama's own hand-picked Joint Chiefs chairman doesn't know if Gaddafi really "must" go or not. And it'll all be over in a few days or maybe weeks, presumably regardless of the outcome
Does that mean Libya's civilians will no longer be deserving of our protection at the end of an arbitrary and as-yet-unannounced deadline? Will the Coalition (of the willing!) pick up our slack? If so, how without American command and control and logistics? Or will we continue to provide those even after we cease combat operations? If our partners can't keep up the pressure, will we step in?
Roger made a good case last weekend for American intervention (although that jab about "extremist libertarians" hurt a little, boss!), reminding us that "we’re all in this together," and that "good is what we are supposed to do." But this Administration is so feckless in the pursuit of its unidentifiable goals, that I honestly don't see what good we're supposed to do here.
I guess it's all just too smart for me.