As Sully notes, neo cons are pushing for another war in the middle east, which amazes me to no end. Proof, I guess, that they learn nothing from the past, or perhaps that their goal is to be destructive. What is it that Einstein supposedly said about the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and hoping for a different result?
What saddens me is that these people don't care about the cost of war--economic or human. Sometimes military response is the only possible response. But with these people it is the only response.
Too bad they refuse to pay for their wars.
7 comments:
From Ross Doubt-Hat, one of the heroes of the neocon movement:
Advocates of a Libyan intervention don’t seem to have internalized these lessons. They have rallied around a no-flight zone as their Plan A for toppling Qaddafi, but most military analysts seem to think that it will fail to do the job, and there’s no consensus on Plan B. Would we escalate to air strikes? Arm the rebels? Sit back and let Qaddafi claim to have outlasted us?
If Ross is gonna be this cogent, I may read one more of his columns, until he starts going back to talking about IMMORAL SEX WITH SEXY WOMEN"S VAGINAS.
How would we compare a no-fly zone to actions taken in Bosnia.
?
What do you mean, Bob?
My unit was deployed to Bosnia. So...we had a no-fly zone AND boots on the ground running security patrols. Though our Rules of Engagement were REALLY tight, we still had permission to shoot, and went on patrols fully-loaded with enough lead and grenades to really screw some stuff up.
That's different than what is being proposed in Libya, which to me appears to be to establish air superiority so Qadafi's jets stop killing the rebels. But again, Doubt-Hat's opinion is kinda solid; "just jets" will prolly lead to "aaaaannnnnd maybe some troops."
My response is just that the same people who pushed us into Iraq, and wanted to ignore Afghanistan, are now cheerleading our next war.
Maybe going in is what should happen, I don't know. Maybe we can actually get an international response here. But military power should be used sparingly and wisely. Not out of a knee-jerk response because there happens to be oil in the mix.
I will admit that I was dismayed that the messages coming from the Administration were "no fly zone" and "all options are on the table.". I didn't see this as a good thing. Without broad support from the international community (especially the Arab community), we would be seen as sticking our noses into something that we shouldn't. The Arab League has given the thumbs up to a no fly zone, but I also wonder if it will work.
In Bosnia, NATO, along with Russia and many former Warsaw Pact countries, made up the military presence. The situations were very different, but I think that if we send troops, it has to be part of a broad international effort.
Post a Comment