Saturday, March 19, 2011

Now What?

I've already stated that the United States should not be involving itself in the revolutions/upheavals currently taking place in the Arab world.
Still, I find myself rooting for the Libyan rebellion as it seeks to oust it's dictator and while I'm not happy about the 'no-fly' zone as it involves United States resources I will openly admit that I'm less unhappy than I should be.

But what are we to do concerning similar Arab rebellions? Are we now gonna do the consistent thing for the Bahrainis? Syrians? I hear the Palestinians are beginning to become unrestful toward their rulers as well (and then there are the other immediate rulers in Tel Aviv...). How about the Yemenis, the Saudis...?

In my opinion, we've not exactly set a proper course here. It would help if the administration actually had a policy from which to work from, but it doesn't.
I think President Obama doesn't have a firm clue of what direction he wants to go in.
As it is now, this die is cast:
We are in Libya.
What's the endgame? Where is the standard of victory? If Gadhafi still succeeds in crushing the rebellion despite the 'no fly zone', what to do next?
It doesn't seem wise do military engagements without deciding who the loser will be, and by siding to protect a rebellion, you have decided against the regime, and should be committed to it's defeat.
Boots on the ground, maybe, if things don't go 'our' way? If not, why not?

I would feel differently if this was all to get Gadhafi for the slaughter of American civilians over Lockerbie, but that was over twenty year ago. By doing nothing during that time, we've essentially said that it wasn't that big of a deal. I disagree. It should have been a bigger deal than we made it.
(Were I in charge, Gadhafi would have been targeted a long time ago.)
Maybe it's the justice for Lockerbie angle that has me less upset about our involvement at the moment.

One thing I do know, we should be very wary of where the latest spin on the Obama Doctrine is taking us. Or is this just another Bush policy he's adopting after getting elected by criticizing it?
That is, if there is an Obama Doctrine. I have this feeling that he just pulls it out of his ass, reads the smear marks as if tea leaves, and goes from there.


Foxfier said...

He needs a distraction.

Too late to do much, but hey, the EU asked him to help keep them from being flooded with refugees, so this might make him look tough!

Beats getting beat up playing games again....

If we'd responded as soon as he set fighter jets on the protesters, it would be different; if it were done quickly as the last straw after Lockerbie, it'd be different.

Just looks weak and flimsy.

Foxfier said...

*almost busts a gut*
This is priceless, though.

Guess war isn't so evil when it's your guy. (Notice how the folks opposing this are not saying war is evil, they're raising practical or style considerations?)

RW said...

I was against President Bush inventing reasons to go into Iraq and I'm against ant action President Obama leads America to take into Libya. You'll notice how the chickenhawks who pounded the pulpit bloody over weapons of mass destruction that weren't there are now criticizing Obama for doing the same thing Bush would have done if he were in office. The hypocrites on the Right are predictable. Guess war is evil when it isn't your guy.

Foxfier said...

This, plus whatever made it to Syria.

Guess war is evil when it isn't your guy.

Since there's only one side that claims war is evil (rather than a bad thing that sometimes has to happen), I'm glad we can agree on this.

Foxfier said...

A bit more, and more.

Gino said...

i dont think Bush was making up reasons to go into iraq.
also, i dont hink Obama is making up reasons to go into libya.

Bush knew what he wanted to do, and why. the difference for Obama, is that he doesnt know what he wants to do, or why he doesnt want to do it.
all Obama knows is that he doesnt want to end up in a quagmire, but hasnt figured out that you have to stay out of strange places in oredr to avoid them.

for that all super-wise-intelligence we were told that he has, he acts pretty stupid quite too often.

Brian said...

I keep trying to comment but Blogger doesn't seem to like what I have to say...

Brian said...

...except that.

Have you instituted a word limit around here?

Mr. D said...


Blogger has a character limit on comments. I'm not sure the exact figure, but I've run up against it before. Break it up into 2-3 comments if you have to.

I'm skeptical of this adventure. I did support the Afghanistan and Iraq adventures at the time they were launched, but I've grown skeptical about those as well. We haven't done a good job with the first two and there's no reason to believe we'll fare any better this time. It's not that Obama has initiated it that makes it problematic, it's that we don't seem to have a clear understanding of what we want to be. We act like an empire but we decry imperialism. To me, that's the problem,

Brian said...

Mr. D--Yeah I figured that was it. I've been on Blogger since before it had its own commenting system, and *never* run into it before. I didn't think what I wrote was that long (it generally isn't) but who knows.

Anyway, I've more or less posted what I was going to say anyway at my place.

Foxfier said...

If there were links, it may have gone into spam.

I only get spam alerts about half the time.

Folks have also had their posts vanishing, but they go out by email in that case.

Brian said...

No links, and I don't think what I wrote was more than a couple hundred words. What I got was "Blogger cannot complete your request"...I tried to back out and reload, but it was gone (this was yesterday morning.) I didn't have time to retype it until yesterday evening, came back, and the same thing happened, so I gave up.

Vanesa Littlecrow W. said...

Oh Bushama...

Gino said...

i was having issues with small repsonses tha past week, so i dont think its your word count.
besides, you are so stingily effective with words i cant imagine it could be the count.