What If We Got Into A War…
By Mitch Berg
…but only did it in a half-in, half-out, half-assed kind of way, so that when all was said and done our intervention really didn’t lead to our intended result at all?
Forces loyal to Col. Moammar Gadhafi continued to push rebels out of positions along coastal oil towns, further delaying the rebel drive on Tripoli and testing the limits of the coalition air strikes at a time when the alliance is considering arming Col. Gadhafi’s opponents.
So let’s get this straight; we went to war a month late, in support of “rebels” who very well may end up our enemies – and we may fail anyway?
Wow. Too bad we couldn’t find a ward heeler with some foreign policy experience.
March 30th, 2011 at 11:21 am
Hillary was asked this week about reports that AQ is involved in the rebel forces. She said they are looking into that.
You’d think they would have done that before making war on the brown skin people of Libya.
March 30th, 2011 at 11:32 am
“So let’s get this straight; we went to war a month late, in support of “rebels” who very well may end up our enemies – and we may fail anyway?
Your summary doesn’t pass the TelePrompter test. The TelePrompter of O would read thusly: Our timely intervention into this assault on human rights will secure our place in the world community as an ally of the Freedom Fighters, whose rights are being threatened. For their safeguards, and the safeguarding of free people everywhere, we pledge our unswerving commitment to defeat the enemies of democracy.
Or, until the polls say we f****d up.
March 30th, 2011 at 11:37 am
We should have covertly taken out Gadhafi years ago.
March 30th, 2011 at 11:56 am
Look at the bright side. Our dickless, empty suit President is going to arm people who hate us. What could go wrong?
March 30th, 2011 at 1:28 pm
The rag tag rebel army reminds me of the green Union troops who marched gaily to the first battle of Manassas and promptly got owned by the veteran, better led Confederates. Eventually the Union prevailed because of the industrial base of the North and the effect of a war of attrition on the South. Nobody is going to be training or outfitting the anti-Gaddafy troops to the extent that they need it, even if they do have some al Qaeda elements. NATO airstrikes and Tomahawk missiles look cool on drone aircraft video feeds, but they aren’t a substitute for coordinated close air support and boots on the ground. I predict a vicious stalemate, with the eventual winner hostile toward the West.
March 30th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Of course the eventual winner will be hostile to the West. They are ALL hostile to the West. Shit, the POTUS is hostile to the West.
March 30th, 2011 at 2:08 pm
There is nothing in Obama’s resume that would lead you to believe that he knew anything about fighting a war. Hell, that is one reason why so many libs voted for him.
March 30th, 2011 at 3:00 pm
Big;
You forgot to add this; “Ghadfi has acted arrogantly and we’ll be apologizing to him after he’s defeated.
March 30th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
But Barry got the OK from the Arab league. That makes the Bamster’s coalition much more legitimate than W’s.
That whole Congress thing doesn’t apply to the Won.
March 30th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
Today the Democratic president announced he was sending advisors to…
March 31st, 2011 at 7:41 am
And what happens if Quaddafi wins?
March 31st, 2011 at 9:56 am
I loved the Hot Air tag on an article (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/30/hillary-to-congress-on-not-seeking-authorization-for-libya-war-too-bad/) written a few days ago:
“Clinton: Didn’t need Congress because this is so awesomely multilateral.”