Arabs backed West’s Libya no-fly zone action right up until the bombs started falling; The U.S. should take charge now that it has begun, war by committee not the way to go, and we probably should not have gotten involved, but we have, deal with it!

So the powers that be decided to go to war in Libya to oust Gaddafi after all, even though I had blogged (they probably don’t read my blog) essentially that to do so would likely be a fool’s errand or at least not in the best interests of the United States (technically the goal is to just get Gaddafi from shooting at his own people or something like that).


ADD 2:

I should mention for clarity that the “powers that be” are supposedly members of the United Nations Security Council, with China and Russia abstaining from the vote in favor of the no-fly zone over Libya, instead of voting no, which could have prevented it. Germany, Brazil and India, non-permanent security council members, also abstained from voting.

To add to the confusion and to demonstrate why you can’t expect Arabs to take care of their own problems, the Arab League had endorsed the no-fly zone, right up till the time the bombs started falling and the missiles flying. The West will always be criticized in their world no matter what — so why don’t we just stay out and save the money and blood? really!

As far as their oil, we have our own we can drill for. I hope they drown in theirs.


And I do call this a war. While Gaddafi may be forced to chicken out with all the bombs falling around him and having his air force destroyed, he may not, and besides the likely result may well be the whole country being pushed into civil war and then what do we (the U.S.) do or what does the United Nations do?

In addition I do not see how you can run a military operation by committee, with each member nation involved deciding what it will and will not do.

One nation and one representative of that nation, such as the United States in World War II and Supreme Allied commander U.S. Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, needs to be in charge.

Fighting war by the leadership of a committee does not stand much of a chance of working. Like I have said, if Gaddafi just collapses and things go well after that maybe, but then one has to ask, why wasn’t someone just sent in to knock him off (instead of spending millions of dollars for each Cruise missile and for all the jet fuel and so on) ?

Yesterday I heard the French were the first in. Good luck with that. When was the last time the French ever won anything (and didn‘t they lose next door Algeria a long time ago now?)? Didn’t we have to save them from the Germans two times in the last century, all because we felt beholding to them for the help of one French volunteer Gen. Lafayette in our own Revolutionary War (yes I realize the French nation itself supported our cause back then because at the time we had a mutual enemy, the British Crown).

I am appalled that U.S. President Barack Obama has stated more than once now that no U.S. troops will be put on the ground in Libya (just airplane and missile strikes). While I would not want to see us get bogged down in another Middle East war, war is war and the only way to fight it is to win and generally ground troops have to go in some time to consolidate things and to hold the ground.


ADD 1:

It just gets worse and even more absurd. I just read a story in which the U.S.’s top military man Admiral Mike Mullen is quoted as now saying we are not necessarily going after Gaddafi, that the maniac could conceivably stay in power, that we are just trying to keep him from attacking his people. So this is in contradiction now of what Obama and his administration has been saying, that is Gaddafi must go. And so, do we just send in air strikes every time we don’t like certain policies or internal actions by another nation ? Hey, I knew Eisenhower, and Mike Mullen is no Gen. Eisenhower and Obama is no President Eisenhower or FDR or even Harry Truman (well I didn’t personally know Eisenhower, but I was around when he was president, although I was only a little kid).


Probably we have no business going into Libya anyway. We would not want to have had a third party interfere with our own Civil War back in the 1860s (the South had hoped and the North had feared, I think I recall in my history, that Great Britain might take the side of the South — needing their cotton for their mills).

And we are applying the double standard, as has been already pointed out by many observers, in that we are not attacking the governments of Bahrain or Yemen or even Saudi Arabia for holding down their own dissidents. And in fact, we really have egg on our face for supporting Gaddafi up until recently because he had cleverly pretended to play nice with the West.

But of course the reason Europe and the United States are interested in Libya is because it has OIL.

But since the war is on, let’s get a military leader, and that leader has to be American because the United States is the super power of the world and whether we like it or not the world has already decided we own this military action anyway.

So far, however, Obama seems indecisive (he and those who agree with his methods might just say “cautious”).

But Obama needs to appoint a military leader for this operation and then get out of his way, but of course Obama still must be in charge as the ultimate authority, albeit in the background.

If things go well and this whole thing is over with shortly, maybe I am wrong.

What are the chances of that (not me being wrong, but things going well)?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: