Posted on | April 18, 2011 | 11 Comments
Obama never saw a problem that couldn’t be solved by tax increases. By the same token, John McCain never saw a problem that couldn’t be solved by more bombing:
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Monday he feared a “stalemate” has developed in Libya that would lead to a more radical government in that country.
McCain, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the U.S. should revive its air attacks to incapacitate forces loyal to Moammar Gadhafi’s regime.
“All we need to do is get sufficient air power in there to really nail Gadhafi’s forces, and we can succeed,” McCain said on KFYI radio. “A stalemate is a terrible outcome, because if you have a stalemate you open the door for radical Islamists to come in and hijack this revolution.”
OK, maybe some of my more hawkish friends will have no problem with Crazy Cousin John’s dubious use of the first-person plural (“we can succeed”), but exactly how much bombing does he suppose will be necessary to allow the half-assed Libyan rebels to defeat Qaddafi?
Tuesday will be the one-month anniversary of the start of “Operation Odyssey Dawn,” and in the past four weeks the rebels have demonstrated their absolute dearth of military ability. You could assemble any random group of 2,000 JROTC cadets, issue them the same weapons possessed by the Libyan rebels and expect a better results.
I’ll defer to the good advice of Geraldo Rivera (“I swear to god, if you give these people weapons more powerful than they have right now, they will be a grave danger to themselves and others”) because at least Geraldo has seen the rebels first-hand. John McCain just sits around stateside and yells, “Bombs away!”
While I am not prepared to rule out the possibility that Qaddafi will soon be overthrown (perhaps by a military coup), it should be bloody obvious by now what’s gone wrong in Libya:
- After the relatively quick and easy ouster of Mubarak in Egypt, Obama got the idea that Qaddafi could be overthrown just as easily.
- The French were, for some unknown reason (perhaps related to Sarkozy’s domestic political situation), very eager to see Qaddafi overthrown, and started militating for a NATO-led intervention.
- Like some other American presidents of recent memory, Obama listened to advisers who told him this foreign adventure was going to be a cakewalk — a chance to “look presidential.”
- With little or no accurate intelligence about the Libyan rebels, and with a U.N. Security Council mandate for “humanitarian” intervention, Obama then approved a limited short-term U.S. military action, thinking that would be sufficient to tip the balance against Qaddafi.
Well, guess what? It was a bad idea.
Either we go to war or we don’t. You can’t halfway fight a war. Either we should have resolved to do whatever was needed to overthrow Qaddafi, or we never should have gotten involved in what is, after all, somebody else’s civil war.
And another thing: Odyssey Dawn? What the hell kind of name is that for a military operation? Sounds like a disco cover band in lime-green leisure suits playing the Holiday Inn circuit in 1975.
At this point, then, I’d say Obama’s got two choices:
- Either resolve to win this thing at all costs; or
- Leave it to the Europeans and blame it all on Hillary Clinton.
Whatever you do, Mr. President, don’t listen to John McCain. He’s crazy, you know. Don’t Blame Me, I Voted for Bob Barr!
UPDATE: Peter Heck at American Thinker:
I’m hoping someone can help me. I left on vacation last week, and when I got back, an entire war was missing. . . . Although I’ve found hints that it still exists somewhere, President Obama’s Libyan War is officially missing in action.
Exactly. If Obama’s Excellent Libyan Adventure had led to the quick toppling of Qaddafi and the liberation of Libya, the MSM stood ready to pronounce this a stunning triumph for the Commander-in-Chief. Now that it’s beginning to look like a complete botch, they can scarcely be bothered to notice.
Meanwhile, here’s the latest video report from Misrata: