...Obama plans on dropping out of our leadership role against Ga-Daffy. We're suppose to relinquish command of the coalition "within days."
So who's going to take over?
That hasn't bee decided yet.
The command & control confusion almost sounds like an Abbott and Costello routine.
What's the end-game in all this?
Mark Steyn rolls-in from "The Corner:"
And what are some of the "usual suspects" going to learn from this? Once again, Mr. Steyn provides some answers:
Speaking of answers, some of my friends weighed-in on the We Don't Know What We're Doing article, I posted yesterday. Here's a sampling of comments:
I have an unscientific observation. The CNN website's poll on U.S. support for a no-fly zone was 80% in favor on Friday. That has dropped to 60% now that we are actually doing it. That means a large portion of people say they support it, until the moment that something starts, then they change their mind immediately. It probably does not help when the Commander in Chief is not even in the hemisphere to kick things off, and has to do an audio message in between sightseeing activities.
That's a pretty good observation. [Comrade Karla] and I have mused on this characteristic of the all-too-fickle American public for a long time. I believe [Comrade Karla] said it best one day about 5 years ago (and this is a paraphrase)......."The people with the 'Free Tibet' stickers on their cars never stop running their mouths off about how we don't do enough. But they suddenly wouldn't be OK with what we'd actually have to do to free Tibet."
Speaking of the good comrade, here he is now:
The same goes for Sudan/Darfur or any other "humanitarian disaster" du jour. In fact, we have less reason to nail Ghaddafi than we did Saddam--but if the whining hypocrites of the UN and Arab League bless it, suddenly you have an imprimatur of legitimacy. Derived from what basis, I know not. Expect the 'coalition of the wobbly' to collapse within the week, especially as the Arab League will utterly lack the stones to fly combat missions (if not the actual capability) and assorted Euros will begin whining when stuff gets blown and people die. Our President will play another round of golf.
Actually, we had every reason to kill Qa-daffy...in 1988! We should've ended his existence after the Pan Am bombing. However, because of GB1 inaction, I agree with you about Qa-daffy vs. Saddam in the 21st Century. I agree that this coalition was in serious trouble from the get-go. Obama should've sat this one out because it is not going to end well, short of a bullet to Qa-daffy's head from one of his peeps. The UN mandate does not have any provision for regime change, so any attempts to nail Qa-daffy personally are going to exceed its authority and generate a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth. The Euros are so gung-ho because it provides a fig leaf for their disgusting appeasement of him for oil contracts. I never thought I'd be so opposed to military action, especially against someone like Qa-daffy. Either I am getting older and wiser, or older and softer!
What bugs me is the surreal nature of the whole thing. I realize we are trying to let our "coalition partners" do as much as possible but when was the last time we got ourselves involved in a major military action with so little public debate? Agree with the actions or not, Gulf Wars I and II and the interventions in the Balkans in the 1990s were heavily discussed and debated in the media and in Congress.
I notice that the Arab League is already against it, claiming they signed on to a no-fly zone, not a bombing campaign. The African Union is against it as well. So much for our current head shed's "unique" name and ethnicity carrying weight with those folks.
This evening, John Bolton was on Greta Van Sustern's show,
On the Record. He pointed out the following, which I'm paraphrasing:
The biggest threat to the Libyan people is Muammar Gaddafi.
If we don't take him out personally, he'll cause trouble for us later, with terrorist attacks or revamping his WMD program.
