What an interesting situation. Here we have a brutal dictator who is slaughtering his own people to keep his grip on power. He's no ally of the west, and has in fact consistently aligned himself with some of the worst and most brutal peer dictators in the world. He is Muslim, yet has no use for the Jihadists who would also seek to unseat him and likely string him up in the bargain too.
Obama has taken some very tentative and sometimes self contradicting steps to intervene, usually with some kind of blessing from the UN. The active involvement of the US is clearly escalating with air and artillery strikes that clearly put us in direct military battles with Libyan forces. Many are calling for the US and others to arm the opposition to Ghadafi.
Yet the candidate Obama repeatedly ripped Bush for sending Americans off to war without the blessing of Congress, and said he lacked the constitutional authority to do so. Many have condemned the US for interfering in civil wars, taking sides and kingmaking in such conflicts, and generally butting into other peoples' business to advance our own interests. Yet when we fail to actively confront and engage Ghadafi, we're throwing peace and freedom lovers to the wolves.
What's the correct course of action here?
The only stupid questions are those unasked!
2 posts • Page 1 of 1
The harder the struggle, the more they'll appreciate freedom when they get it. Ideally, they free themselves with no U.S. troops on the ground. Since Obama has already ruled out increasing our ground forcest, I'd like to see France continue to rehabilitate its image and lead NATO in introducing more (sans U.S.) to increase pressure on Ghaddafi to leave by demonstrating the UN has more teeth than it used in Rwanda when it tried to gum the genociders to death.