President Barack Obama, speaking in Santiago, Chile on Monday, defended his decision to order U.S. strikes against Libyan military targets, and insisted that the mission is clear.It's like watching Barack Obama take Geopolitics 101 in real time. Dude, there's a midterm tomorrow. Have you studied?
And like a parade of Pentagon officials the past few days, Obama insisted that the United States' lead military role will be turned over—"in days, not weeks"—to an international command of which the United States will be just one part.
The only problem: None of the countries in the international coalition can yet agree on to whom or how the United States should hand off responsibilities.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Oh Yeah, This Is Going Well
Wow.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hm.
So, on March 14, you essentially wrote Hey, stop sitting on your hands, and do something quick!"
Now they've done something, and it looks like you are saying "Nooooo, not *that*!"
Just out of curiosity, what was it you wanted to be done? And if Obama had done it, would you have accepted it as a good thing to do, or would you have found some reason to find fault with that, too?
Take sides. Pick a winner and get the job done quickly and efficiently. Get it done early with minimal effort and bloodshed.
Waiting until the rebels were holed up in Benghazi and then taking the role of referee with an unspecified lead of a coalition of unknown stability is taking action in some sense, but then so is falling down three flights of stairs.
It seems to me that the strategy you propose was tried twice recently, in both 2001 and 2003. While the intent was there both times to get in, make some changes, and get out at minimal cost, it didn't ultimately work out that way.
What would make Libya work out differently if we tried it again?
Post a Comment