Libya friends and foes

There is an old axiom “My enemy’s enemy is my friend.”

Since September 11^th 2001, America’s armed forces have been at war with Al Qaeda.

Wherever we find them, we try to kill or capture them.

Except in Libya, where it appears they are going to benefit from our intervention.

Al Qaeda seems to think of this as a benefit, which is not good for long term strategic American interests.

Fasten your seat belts, it is going to be a bumpy ride with Libya.

The O'Reilly Spin

It’s not that I don’t appreciate hearing other opinions and trying to understand the perspective that produces them, but for the life of me I don’t understand Bill O’Reilly’s take on Libya. 

Mr. O’Reilly seems to consider military action against Colonel Gaddafi as an American “moral imperative” consistent with the responsibilities of an ordinary honest citizen who finds himself with the power to stop an individual’s murder and a duty to act so.

Well, it’s a perspective, but it is entirely without merit and irrelevant when it comes to foreign affairs. Even if we leave aside the issues of Congressional approval, command structure and cost, other troubling concerns remain over our current involvement in Libya and its eventual outcome.

Colonel Gaddafi has American blood on his hands from actions he commissioned years ago. Ronald Reagan tried to kill him and almost succeeded; too bad.

But the situation NOW in Libya is not one of a choice between good and bad guys. In fact, it may be a choice only between bad guys.

Rolling Stone magazine reported that "America is now at war to protect a Libyan province that's been an epicenter of anti-American jihad"

These are not people I am willing to sign up to send our young men and women to save and saving them might actually work against our interests in the long term.

So then we go back to Colonel Gaddafi’s bad deeds in the past and the assertion that the world would be better without him.

That makes a lot of sense. I remember the Lockerbie bombing and Colonel Gaddafi should be held accountable.

But here again, what actions are we taking?

We aren’t trying to kill Colonel Gaddafi outright. No, we are enforcing a no-fly zone and apparently a no-drive zone against his army.

Our military intervention came at precisely the moment when Colonel Gaddafi was on the verge of eliminating his opposition.

So now what?

Is stalemate or continued fighting with a massacre of Gaddafi’s people at the end an acceptable outcome?

The logical path we are on now ends with ground troops, occupation and someone hunting Gaddafi down and killing or capturing him, despite what the Obama Administration keeps claiming.

Remember how long it took our people to get Saddam Hussein in Iraq?

Mr. O’Reilly has been rolling out Edmund Burke’s quote to strengthen his logic.

Perhaps Mr. O’Reilly should consider other quotes from history

“Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster” – William Tecumseh Sherman

Amateur hour in Washington DC,,,,

Amateur hour in Washington DC, they don't know who they are helping, they don't have an overall goal AND they don't know who will replace him,,,add to that there was no Congressional approval or review,,,

Check out Jihadwatch's review of an article that appeared in Rolling Stone magazine,,,,

America-is-now-at-war-to-protect-a-libyan-province-thats-been-an-epicenter-of-anti-american-jihad.html

DHS and the sex trade

This is an interesting look at how the DHS is doing something right. Glad to see that the web hosting provider took their role seriously also.

DHS Undercover sting web site gets derailed

Welcome

This is a spot for me to post links and comments to news articles that really torque me up.  I also intend to put other topics here as they catch my eye.