Stray Thoughts

Does anyone else find it just the slightest bit hypocritical, that the people who were shouting the loudest, back when things were dicy in Iraq, that we were in the middle of a civil war, had no business being there, and that we should immediately withdraw and let them sort it out for themselves, are the same people who are providing support and justification for our intervention in Libya?  If what is happening in Libya isn't a civil war, I surely don't know what you would call it.

The justification, such as it was, is that we are preventing the slaughter of innocent people by supporting the rebels.  So, when the rebels take over and start slaugthering Khadaffi supporters, are we going to bomb the hell out of them?

It was supposed to be a no-fly zone.  Militarily, I can certainly justify all the cruise missiles targeted at the air defense network.  To police a no-fly zone you must have absolute air superiority.  You can't achieve that when you're dodging SAMs.  SAMs aren't effective if they're not guided.  You take out the ability to guide them before you start flying your F-16s and Mirages and Tornados over the country.  However, if it is only to police the no-fly zone, why am I seeing bombed out tanks and personnel carriers?  Has Ghaddafi achieved what I thought might be impossible?  The M1A1 Flying Tank?

In 2003 Colonel Ghaddafi foreswore terrorism.  This wasn't some conversion on the road to Damascus moment for the good colonel.  Before that he had been one of the most prolific supporters of terrorism in the world.  One has only to look at Pan Am 103.  If you need more convincing, look up his provision of arms and, more importantly, Semtex, to the Provisional IRA, as well as many others.  No, Ghadaffi decided against terrorism for one simple reason.  Whatever you might think of the Bush Administration, its actions put people on notice that the kid gloves were off.  Paraphrasing the President, "If you ain't with us, you're agin us."  Regime change in Libya was certainly in the war plans somewhere.  Khadaffi may be as crazy as a shithouse rat, but he's not stupid.  Above all he, like most other tinpot dictators, is a pragmatist.  If what I'm doing is going to get me a one-way trip to sunny Guantanamo, maybe I better quit doing it.  Now, however, our current president is saying that Ghaddafi must go.  We're making it very possible that the rebels sweep into Tripoli and hang the good colonel from the nearest lamp post.  I, for one, will not shed a tear.  However, since he has nothing to lose, do you think he might decide to wreak a little revenge while he still can?

But what do I know.