I've been watching... barely... the situation unfold in Libya.
I really have no idea what President Obama is doing, except attempting to score some cheap and easy political points. This really is the same stupid kind of stuff that smart minds have been bitching about for the last 8 years: getting involved in an effort to overthrow a dictator in an unstable Muslim country, whose local politics and culture we barely understand, which has no chance of stability, little chance of democracy, and is gutted by 30 years of dictatorial rule. To top it off, we're apparently backing a bunch of rebel imbeciles who don't even know how to pull a pin out of a grenade... but they're asking us to give them tanks to drive around in.
It's a tragic farce, really. If this were not Qaddafi we are dealing with — the safest, easiest, weakest, most alone, and most comical dictator on the planet — this wouldn't be happening. But it is, and somehow that makes it okay for America... Obama, actually... to wander into yet another (using Obama's own words to describe the situation) "turd sandwich".
Oh, I'm sure the outcome will be to our satisfaction: The bad guy will get chased out of town, and the wide-eyed rebels will lay down their arms and welcome in foreign (American) help in establishing some cute and cuddly little newborn democracy. I'm sure this time around, things will be nothing like Iraq... because, obviously, Libya is nothing like Iraq. Right? Most certainly, America won't be paying for everything either because we have NATO helping this time. Right? This time, the new rebel government will be even-handed, impeccable, competent, and welcomed by all their fellow citizens. Right?
You know what? Actually, I'm willing to bet "yes" on all of the above. I'm guessing that this isn't a "fool me twice" situation. I'm guessing that even Al Quaida is on our side in this particular argument. But I really don't think that makes it right: Libya is precisely the kind of scenario we elected Obama to avoid — not the no-fly zone, or even the bombing of the assaulting artillery... but arming the rebels, sending in "specialists", et cetera. It sets a bad precedent for future "rebel uprisings" in other countries, and it obligates us to further "nation building".
It's really just not what I wanted to see happening.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
tell the countries who want the USA to intervene that they are going to have to pay the bill for such an intervention instead of bankrupting the taxpayers future social security payments.this is an outrage.what do AMERICANS GET FOR THEIR HUMANTITARIAN EFFORTS besides $5/gallon gas prices,let 'em kill each other if they dont want to pay.
Post a Comment