This Odyssey Dawn thing (Libya operation) leaves a lot of questions…

Just scanning the news I see we’ve lost one expensive fighter jet in Libya now, but fortunately, according to reports, the crew ejected safely and in rebel (presumably friendly) territory. But, you see, war is war, and it is dangerous and expensive.

And it seems that there is a question as to whether President Obama acted unconstitutionally in ordering the military action in that he did not even consult congress. I’m so used to seeing presidents essentially act on their own deploying the military that this fact almost escaped me. I see that Republican Newt Gingrich is criticizing Obama (the Democrat) for intervening in Libya. Strange, right up until Obama did, Gingrich was carping that Obama was dithering over Libya when he ought to act. 

I’m sticking with my opinion that intervening in Libya is a bad idea, but at the same time, if we do (and we did), then we have to know what we are about and get it done and we have to be in charge (Obama seems to think we get it going and then step aside, as to control). I see that there seems to be some questions as to what the mission of what is being called operation Odyssey Dawn (someone said the name sounds like a porn star) is. There is also a question as to who is or should be in charge, the UN, the U.S., NATO, and the Arab League seems to be equivocal in its support. First it thought it was a good idea, and then not so much.

Are we just trying to get rid of one man (Gaddafi)? Are we just trying to make him behave (fat chance)? What?

Personally I do not care for the idea of war (military operation, whatever) waged by committee or by the UN. If the U.S. is involved in war it is in charge or it does not get involved. I know we have accepted the help of other nations in the past, but we are generally in charge because we are the biggest kid on the block and everyone expects us to supply the brunt of the resources.

What if the UN decided it did not like something we (the U.S.) were doing and declared war on us (I guess we could veto that idea in the Security Council, but you know what I mean)?

ADD 1:

More questions:

Are we really intervening in a civil war? What is the history of intervening in civil wars? Who are these forces we are supporting? Will they eventually turn against us? Isn’t this really more about oil than anything else and why don’t we just admit it (it would be good for the soul to be honest)? If it is about saving people, why don’t we intervene in those terrible genocides further south in Africa?


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: