Well, it looks as if the United States is now involved in its third war at the same time. We should not be in this, there are no enduring American interests at stake, and we should be doing all we can these days to husband and sustain our power, not dissipate it. Anyone who did not support the war in Iraq against a much greater threat to our security, but who today supports this action, is a flat out hypocrite.
I believe the President is straddling a careful line, and my guess are that his instincts were to stay out altogether. But there has been a deafening din from the Euros and from some in his own administration, those for whom military adventurism only wins a seal of approval when there are no "selfish" motives (like oil, or power politics) at stake. Whatever his instincts were, he's in it now. He can't blame this one on anyone else.
We have the very best man in the US Navy--ADM Jim Stavridis--as our man at NATO--the Supreme Allied Commander. I can think of no one I would rather have leading an effort like this, an effort that screams for limited, achievable political objectives and a military commander with the guts to demand them.
"Limited, achievable political objectives . . .?" Has anyone heard any? All I've heard is that we're against Gaddafi because he has been mean to his own people. If that's the criteria for U.S. involvement (Obama Doctrine?), then it should be a bloody couple of years. It will make our domino theory years look pretty tame.
I'm having Kosovo flashbacks. There seems to be a lot of commonality here between administrations in search of an accomplishment and an underlying Clinton flavor with a twist of desperation to fight wrong. What will be most interesting here is what we do following mission creep and how consistent our policy is toward Bahrain, Yemen, Syria, etc. As far as objectives, I heard limited stikes to acheive regime change??
I heard limited strikes to allow France to fly and no ground troops. I am having Kosovo flashbacks with a hint of clintonism and a sense of desperation to show some accomplishment. I am pretty sure we have not planned what phase four will. Of interest will be how consistent we apply foreign policy to Baharain, Yemen, and Syria.
Smartest guy we have.
ReplyDelete"Limited, achievable political objectives . . .?" Has anyone heard any? All I've heard is that we're against Gaddafi because he has been mean to his own people. If that's the criteria for U.S. involvement (Obama Doctrine?), then it should be a bloody couple of years. It will make our domino theory years look pretty tame.
ReplyDeleteI'm having Kosovo flashbacks. There seems to be a lot of commonality here between administrations in search of an accomplishment and an underlying Clinton flavor with a twist of desperation to fight wrong. What will be most interesting here is what we do following mission creep and how consistent our policy is toward Bahrain, Yemen, Syria, etc. As far as objectives, I heard limited stikes to acheive regime change??
ReplyDeleteI heard limited strikes to allow France to fly and no ground troops. I am having Kosovo flashbacks with a hint of clintonism and a sense of desperation to show some accomplishment. I am pretty sure we have not planned what phase four will. Of interest will be how consistent we apply foreign policy to Baharain, Yemen, and Syria.
ReplyDelete'Bout time we got rid of some of those Tomahawks. They were coming up on their shelf life, so it is far cheaper to shoot them than to de-mil them.
ReplyDelete