Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Libya’

I don’t have any strong feelings about the Libya situation. I don’t think we should be there, but I also won’t shed any tears if a cruise missile lands on Qaddafi (I still remember Pan Am 103).

But I do appreciate clever political humor.

Here are Jay Leno’s jabs.

President Obama addressed the nation on Libya. This changes his previous policy on Libya, which was, “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Instead of calling our mission in Libya a war, the White House is calling it a “kinetic military action,” which sounds better than “potentially endless quagmire.”

We’re down to the final four now. Only four Middle East countries we haven’t attacked.

It’s one humiliation after another for Moammar Gadhafi. First his own people started rising up against him, then his compound was bombed, and now he’s getting beaten up by the French.

Germany has pulled its forces out of NATO over Libya. When the Germans don’t want to fight and the French do, the whole world is upside down.

We’re fighting three wars now. Imagine how many we’d be fighting if President Obama hadn’t won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Remember when President Obama said we can’t fight two wars and vowed to change our policy? Well, he did. Now we’re fighting three wars.

Obama said we will send economic aid to Libya to help the Libyan people reach their dreams. And if that works, they’ll try it here.

Some Conan jokes.

It’s being reported that Moammar Gadhafi is surrounded by an elite core of female bodyguards. In a related story, Charlie Sheen invaded Libya.

The name of the U.S. operation in Libya is “Odyssey Dawn.” It’s the first military action to be named by Crabtree & Evelyn.

Here’s what Jimmy Fallon had to say.

The latest episode of “Dancing With the Stars” was preceded by Obama’s new show, “Dancing Around the Objectives in Libya.”

President Obama said the United States has clear and focused goals in Libya. He said he would share those goals with us as soon as Hillary shares them with him.

And here’s a line from David Letterman.

About Libya, President Obama says we’re staying for a short time and then leaving. That’s what my relatives always say.

Read Full Post »

I’m not a foreign policy expert, so perhaps I’m missing something, but a quick glance at the Constitution reveals that Congress has the power to declare war, as specified in Article I, Section VIII. Nobody else has that power, not even the President.

Notwithstanding this clear language, the United States may (or may not, depending on Obama’s mood) participate in military action against Libya merely because of a resolution at the United Nations.

This is rather troubling in the short run because it risks another messy entanglement in the Middle East – and it blatantly disregards the procedure created by our Founding Fathers for making such choices.

But it is equally troubling in the long run because it implicitly restricts the ability of the United States to unilaterally act if there is a time when America’s national security is genuinely threatened.

If we attack Libya because of a resolution from the U.N. Security Council, does that mean we can’t attack some terrorist stronghold in the future if we don’t get a resolution from the U.N.? Don’t kid yourself, the international bureaucrats and their multilateralist sympathizers all around the world think the answer to that question is yes, and they are delighted that the United States is acting in ways that strengthen their position.

Read Full Post »

The world is filled with evil governments run by evil people who do evil things to innocent people. Libya is a stark example of this tragic reality. But that does not necessarily mean it is the responsibility of the United States government to intervene in Libyan affairs – particularly if there is no clear mission or implication for U.S. national security.

George Will opines on this issue today, asking more than a dozen probing questions about the wisdom of another nation-building experiment in the Muslim world. This excerpt has a handful of the questions that I think are most important. I’m especially concerned that the U.S. government might intervene after asking permission from the kleptocrats at the United Nations – thus doing the wrong thing in the worst possible way.

Today, some Washington voices are calling for U.S. force to be applied, somehow, on behalf of the people trying to overthrow Moammar Gaddafi. Some interventionists are Republicans, whose skepticism about government’s abilities to achieve intended effects ends at the water’s edge. All interventionists should answer some questions:

The world would be better without Gaddafi. But is that a vital U.S. national interest? If it is, when did it become so? A month ago, no one thought it was.

Before we intervene in Libya, do we ask the United Nations for permission? If it is refused, do we proceed anyway? If so, why ask? If we are refused permission and recede from intervention, have we not made U.S. foreign policy hostage to a hostile institution?

Would it be wise for U.S. military force to be engaged simultaneously in three Muslim nations?

I’m surely not an expert on these issues, but my aversion to nation building does not mean I’m opposed to slapping around people who attack the United States. If the President happened to drop a cruise missile on Gaddafi and said it was a delayed response for the Pan Am Lockerbie bombing, I wouldn’t lose a second of sleep.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: