Meanwhile, the Brits and the Frenchies are working on a resolution to present to the UN for a no-fly zone.
So if you say that a no-fly zone should be enforced, I ask by whom? Nobody has more of a score to settle with Qaddafi than the US, a score that should have been settled as soon as we determined that he and his government was behind Pan Am 103. We chose not to settle that score. A pox on both Republican and Democratic administrations who failed to take care of that. More recently, both the Bush and Obama administrations put their seal of approval on the Qaddafi regime that had supposedly turned over a new leaf, leading to scenes like this:
That's our secretary of state with one of Qaddafi's sons in Washington stating how we "deeply value" our relationship with the gang that shot down Pan Am 103 (my words).
Personally, I would like to see our allies in NATO or our "allies" in the UN take care of that no-fly zone. They owe us one after we took the lead in cleaning up their Balkan backyard during the Clinton administration.
Of course, just like Egypt and Tunisia, we don't know who will eventually take over Libya, but if no one does take any action to assist the rebels and Qaddafi prevails, how does the West look then-or the entire international community if you prefer?
At least BP's oil deal will be secure.
3 comments:
Sounds like a good analysis to me. Another consideration is, if it degenerates into a protracted guerilla war, then jihadists from all over are going to get involved. As of now, the biggest revolutionary upsurge in the Arab world is bypassing al Qaeda. Better to get it wrapped up quickly. (It wouldn't hurt to supply arms and ammunition to the rebels either, but no "military advisors." We know where that leads.
"Personally, I would like to see our allies in NATO or our "allies" in the UN take care of that no-fly zone. "
The problem with that is they want us to do the dirty work. Even if there were a "UN" action we would have to supply almost all the material and ferry them there and then support them. Even though they have as much of a stake in this as we do, they are incapable of any large scale conventional military action.
The problem is our entire goal is to get rid of Qaadafi but what comes next. As Sowell points out most revolutions are followed by serious bloodshed. The Communists murdered more after the fall of the Czar in one week then the Czars ever did. The same thing after the French Revolution and many others.
We need a Plan and a Leader and we don't have either one.
.
Miggie, I assume you are leaving out of consideration the number of Russian dead during WW II, on the one hand, but including those who died in military operations during the Russian Civil War, on the other.
Post a Comment