Posts Tagged ‘libya’

One of the strangest bits of what is going on in Libya is watching people describe what is going on.

At my weekly game night I went around the table with the guys and asked the opinion of the people there. About 60% didn’t care for it thinking it was not our business, another 40% not only approved but they had an interesting take, they insisted what we were doing wasn’t a war.

By an odd coincidence that is exactly what the French are claiming too:

“We are not at war with Libya, we are protecting the civilian population,” said Fillon and added, “Our objectives are very specific… to protect the civilian population, excluding explicitly any occupation forces.”

Nope it’s nothing at all like a war, I would think the Libyans might disagree.

Exit question: As things are getting interesting in Syria what are the odds of seeing the UN or anyone else support “protecting the civilian population” there.

Police fired live ammunition and tear gas Sunday at thousands of Syrians protesting in a tense southern city for a third consecutive day, killing one person and signaling that unrest in yet another Arab country is taking root, activists said.

I suspect we will be hearing crickets over there.

Warner Todd Huston not only has a cooler Fedora than me, he noticed something that everyone else has apparently missed:

About 2,200 Marines from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit will take part in support operations based aboard USS Kearsarge at sea. Those support operations have thus far included air strikes and one rescue operation. The overall mission is to help end the violence directed at the Libyan people.

“In Libya right now they are doing exactly what we need them to do. They are doing what they are told and right now that’s protecting Libyan people against Qadhafi forces,” said Captain Timothy Patrick, a Marine with the 26th MEU.

I don’t pretend to be a military expect but what non-combat role will 2200 marines be doing aboard the Kearsarge at sea that couldn’t be done by the sailors on the ship. It’s not like the Kearsarge is going to be boarding the CSS Alabama anytime soon.

Warner comments:

One suspects that US ground forces will have to become engaged if anything solid is to happen in NATO’s engagement in Libya. And it seems like Obama is warming us up for that yet.

and as Dan Riehl points out, the Kearsarge is an amphibious assault ship, if they aren’t going to be boots on the ground in Libya, just what are they going to be assaulting? According to Gates they are for “options and contingencies,”.

Apparently president Obama’s definition of “boots on the ground” is similar to a few of my friends who insist that this is “not a war”.

It will be very interesting to see what happens once this gets into the MSM.

Pat Buchanan on the attacks on Libya.

Watching Morning Joe twist in circles continues to be an awful lot of fun.

I know some disagree but why should we let the left off the hook for this kind of thing. All it does is enable them the next time they come after conservatives. Additionally the insistence of “limited war” against Gaddafi is nonsense.

He also referred to the French and Europe as the “JV” team.

There is a conflict here in one sense, If this was going to be done it needed to be done faster and a vote could have been asked of congress. I believe when the president spoke the words “Gaddafi must go” he did so without considering what that meant for the US. There is also the possibility that this was done as a sop to Egypt who fought a war with Gaddafi in the past.

In the meanwhile I intend to continue to tweak the left, in the end I hope this will all work out. As for the president regardless if the move was right or wrong or late we are committed and we have to stand behind the fight. In the words of a particular Giant: “I hope we win.”

At least according to Dan Riehl at Riehl world view who recalls an old Sullivan Post per election concerning Barack Obama:

On October 27, 2008, Andrew Sullivan posted: The Top Ten Reasons Conservatives Should Vote For Obama. Given all this playing out today, I thought I’d go back and have a look.

It’s high comedy but let me explain something. It’s my opinion Sullivan’s turn on Bush had everything to do with Bush’s position on Gay Marriage, it was after that point where Sullivan really started changing his tune and it was the (likely correct) belief that Obama was paying lip service to actual marriage during the campaign that made the difference in the other direction.

But as Glenn Reynolds points out the rubes are self identifying, but never fear. As soon a there is an actual Republican challenger to Obama all of our friends on the left who are beating their breasts today will support him, Mendoza line or no.

Update: Stacy Links and comments seem to agree with my Sullivan assessment, Oh and BTW the Mendoza line is a baseball term referring to hitting .200.