Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 12:34 PM ET, 03/ 8/2011

Conservatives bash Obama's do-nothingness on Libya

By Jennifer Rubin

Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, takes to the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal to root for reticence in Libya:

There are political reasons to question the wisdom of the U.S. becoming a protagonist in Libya's civil war. It is one thing to acknowledge Moammar Gadhafi as a ruthless despot, which he has demonstrated himself to be. But doing so does not establish the democratic bona fides of those who oppose him. And even if some of those opposing him are genuine democrats, there is no reason to assume that helping to remove the regime would result in the ascendancy of such people.

To the contrary. Removing Gadhafi and those around him could easily set in motion a chain of events in which a different strongman, with the backing of a different tribe, took over. Or it could create a situation in which radical Islamists gain the upper hand. Either way, significant areas of the country would be beyond any government control, creating vacuums exploitable by al Qaeda and similar groups.

So he says no to a no-fly zone and no to other military options. But complete inactivity doesn't seem attractive either, so he urges:

To say that U.S. interests in Libya are less than vital is not to argue for doing nothing, but rather for making sure that the actions we take are commensurate with the stakes. In the case of Libya, asset freezes, arms embargoes, threatened prosecutions for war crimes, and the creation of humanitarian safe harbors inside the country or just across its borders would be appropriate.

Under this set of policies, Gadhafi could well survive the current challenge -- regimes that are willing and able to attack domestic opponents often do. But, over time, such policies would weaken the regime while strengthening the opposition.

It is odd to favor the ineffective over the effective, and to accept blithely the prolonged slaughter of innocents. But this in essence is Obama's non-policy on Libya.

Conservative critics find this disturbing, if not appalling. Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute e-mails me, "As best I can tell, the administration has elevated doing nothing to a policy art form. Better still, as the administration preaches the wisdom of doing nothing on Libya, having done nothing on either Egypt or Tunisia, the Secretary of Defense is spending his time wishing that as far as Iraq and Afghanistan were concerned, he could go back and do nothing retroactively." (The latter is in reference to Gates's comments last month that anyone recommending a military land operation in the future should "have his head examined.")

Jamie Fly of the Foreign Policy Initiative takes exception to Haass's political critique (a hypothetical one at that) of the Libyan opposition:

The issue in Libya is not the political views of the opposition. Much work will be required before a true democracy takes root in Libya. The issue is whether we are willing to stand by and watch as thousands continue to be killed by the Gadhafi regime's forces. Sitting on the sidelines, as Mr. Haass proposes, is both morally wrong and strategically naive. It sends a horrible message to the Libyan people and others in a region undergoing a democratic revolution that we care only about stability, even when stability comes at the cost of human lives. It also shows other repressive rulers that that the United States is not serious about backing up its rhetoric with action.

And propounding halfway measures, as Haass does, is no better. That conveys a fecklessness and lack of determination. It also betrays confusion: We see Gaddafi as noxious, but we will only do the bare minimum to deflect accusations of passivity? Apparently, this is the state of Obama's "smart diplomacy."

By Jennifer Rubin  | March 8, 2011; 12:34 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: What about those budget talks?
Next: Didn't Obama pledge to complete 3 free-trade deals?

Comments

Our federal deficit should file a paternity suit to make the Conservatives acknowledge it as their child. Conservatives refused to pay-as-we-go in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Now some are advocating a third war in Libya, all the while screaming about our national bankruptcy. Thing is, they refuse to connect the dots to see how funding the Iraq War with borrowed funded helped balloon our current deficit. Would conservatives support raising tax revenues to PAY for a third war (let alone the first two)? I don't think so. They would merely point to mysteriously growing deficit they deny like a disowned child.

Posted by: SageThrasher | March 8, 2011 1:09 PM | Report abuse

It never fails. A post complaining about the deficit, followed by a post containing a suggestion how to make it larger.

Posted by: oldabandonedbeachhouse | March 8, 2011 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Fred Smith (CEO of FedEx) is no Obama lover or "green energy" Pollyanna by any stretch, but he wrote a column in a recent edition of Fortune magazine (money.cnn.com/2011/02/01/technology/frederick_smith_energy.fortune/index.htm) that makes a compelling argument for weaning the U S off of oil.

Libya is a tragic story, but the reality is that billions of people throughout the world live lives of tragedy under the thumbs of dictators, poverty, and seemingly never-ending wars, and relying upon the United States to right all wrongs is little more than a fantasy. Even if we stepped into the middle of Libya's turmoil, is their any doubt that our priority would be to protect their oil exports?

The United States needs to develop our own energy resources, and we need to legislate through taxes or other incentives a transition from gasoline-fueled transportation to other means such as electric, natural gas and fuel cell. To all of the critics who say that we can't afford it, how much do you think today's high gasoline prices have cost us? Last year on this date, I filled up my car for $277.9 a gallon. Today, it is $357.9. Multiply that difference throughout the economy and I'm sure it is a staggering amount.

Posted by: coffeetime | March 8, 2011 1:18 PM | Report abuse

On one hand, it is good to rid of bad actors, whether Lybia, Egypt or elsewhere.

On the other hand, the new guys could easily be worse.

On the other hand, Khadafi is nuts. And Mubarak is old and would soon have been gone anyway.

On the other hand, Egypt was something of an ally, though Khadafi was not.

There are two many hands here to keep track and considering the sorry state of the US intelligence services, it is hard to fault the administration for being tentative.

On the hand, the man is bombing his own people.

Posted by: IsraelP | March 8, 2011 1:26 PM | Report abuse

It never fails. A post complaining about the deficit, followed by a post containing a suggestion how to make it larger.
***************************
The only thing I can take away from this is that Jennifer isn't actually serious about the deficit, nor is she particularly serious about foreign policy.

She's written a few columns now advocating for a no fly zone in Libya without giving any clear indication of how we are going to pay for it, or how it would work in practical terms given our commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Posted by: mustangs79 | March 8, 2011 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Why don't we just ThermoNuke the entire Muslim world and get it over with. Sure 90% of them are peaceloving,but let's face
logistical facts,in order to get the bad 10%,the ninty% have to man up,and play their role. And let's not kid ourselves,take the most lovable,hard working family supporting kind of Muslim,scratch their skin,and there lurks an anti-semitic ,Israel hating monster.
It would almost be worth it to get Jen to **** about Lybia,Iran,Lebanon,Palestine,Egypt,and most of all,Israel.

Posted by: rcaruth | March 8, 2011 1:32 PM | Report abuse

"Conservative critics find this disturbing, if not appalling. Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise.."

Uh, no. Pletka is a neoconservative, not a true conservative, as in to conserve.

Not so funny how neocons consider Libyan lives more valuable than conservative American lives. Very easy to be this charitable when you sacrifice nothing but children of REAL Americans.

Poor S.O.D Gates. He says a bit of truth, and we know neocons hate truth. He'll be shunned as others who cross Kristol and his liberal ilk.

Posted by: mfray | March 8, 2011 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Mfray I consider myself a conservative whatever that is. I am totally against getting involved in Lybia. I would get out of Afghanastan. I would rather use those resources to secure the border and protect our citizens in high crime, and high murder rate areas. The way you say conservative critics i will assume you are a liberal which is someone free of logic, and truth and facts don't mean anything. If you are not my humblest apologies.

Posted by: eddiehaskall | March 8, 2011 2:04 PM | Report abuse

"Our federal deficit should file a paternity suit to make the Conservatives acknowledge it as their child. Conservatives refused to pay-as-we-go in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Now some are advocating a third war in Libya, all the while screaming about our national bankruptcy. Thing is, they refuse to connect the dots to see how funding the Iraq War with borrowed funded helped balloon our current deficit. Would conservatives support raising tax revenues to PAY for a third war (let alone the first two)? I don't think so. They would merely point to mysteriously growing deficit they deny like a disowned child.

Posted by: SageThrasher"

So Conservatives are to blame for the deficit is it, and "refused to pay-as-we-go?" Did Liberals also refuse pay-as-we-go? Both wars were popular in America upon inception - especially Afghanistan. I don't recall the Left screaming for "pay-as-we-go" at the time. And when wars end, they no longer add to the deficit. How about entitlements and other social programs? How have they been treating the deficit?

"Now some (Conservatives) are advocating a third war in Libya"

Who? Name a single one.

Posted by: RitchieEmmons | March 8, 2011 2:10 PM | Report abuse

I don't think Ritchie quite grasps what a no-fly zone means.

Posted by: oldabandonedbeachhouse | March 8, 2011 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Enforcing a no-fly zone in this autocracy-with-oil is little more than an ordinary-course training expense. In fact, there's a good argument to be made to do it, just to keep the guys sharp on their ground-attack, anti-anti-aircraft skills. That's (the money is) not the issue.

It's really a policy dispute between three factions:

a. the neocons, who have, incidentally, been proven right about the broadly dispursed impulse among middle eastern peoples to be accorded basic democratic rights. They want to pull the third leg out of Gaddafi's milking stool.

b. the democrats, who don't want to show daylight between themselves and this president, which is hard because he likes to say one thing while doing another.

c. the realist/Eisenhower sorts, which, ironically include Gates.

I think Reagan would just send a flight of F-18s in there and kill Gaddafi and stop d***ing around with the rhetoric, policy fantasies, and hand-wringing. Who was Reagan's CIA director? Casey. Who taught Casey? Bill Donovan.

Eisenhower would go play golf, like Obama. Unlike Obama, he wouldn't first shake his empty fist.

Posted by: IowaHawkeye | March 8, 2011 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Oh, oldabandonedbeachhouse, what *does* a no-fly zone "mean"?

Posted by: IowaHawkeye | March 8, 2011 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Enforcing a no-fly zone in this autocracy-with-oil is little more than an ordinary-course training expense. In fact, there's a good argument to be made to do it, just to keep the guys sharp on their ground-attack, anti-anti-aircraft skills. That's (the money is) not the issue.
************************
What would you be basing this on, and how could anyone be this blase about a military intervention into a hostile country?

Posted by: mustangs79 | March 8, 2011 2:32 PM | Report abuse

eddiehaskall,

I was pulling the quote from Rubin's article above and I was pointing out how Rubin and Pletka are NOT true conservatives. I consider myself a conservative, but NOT a neocon, which to me, neocons are really just liberal sheep in wolve's clothing.

I agree with you about the border and I'm against the neocon's multi-trillion dollar "excellent" ME adventures.

Posted by: mfray | March 8, 2011 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Diner

It's shame for Gaddafi and also for all Muslim countries leaders. They are seein that people are dying for anti Gaddafi. Hundred of thousands people are leave Libya. Many are living in border.

http://fms.nu/fmJAX1

For this we are bring a leader for our country. For own self he killed the people. For this ................ For this..........

Posted by: webcontent2011 | March 8, 2011 3:03 PM | Report abuse

This column is typical of how the media manipulates public opinion with fraudulant propoganda. First of all, true conservatives believe in less government and more personal responsibility. They rely upon the U.S. Constitution for which Obama took an oath of office to protect, uphold and defend for their foundation for these beliefs.

This columnist is not describing conservatives she is describing neo-con liberals who are NOT conservatives in the true sense of the term.

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it give any President the authority to engage us in foreign wars without a Congressional Declaration of War? This is the first question a true conservative would ask.

Secondly, true conservatives today are concerned about the mounting debt crisis that we are facing as a nation with a national debt of over $14.1 Trillion which comes to over $45,000 per man, woman and child. Why would a conservative who is concerned about the excessive and generally unconstitutional nature of Federal spending want to support an additional military operation when we are already spending $1.1 million a year per troop in Afghanistan and over $600,000 per year per troop in Iraq? Conservatives want less government spending not more.

Obama said he is consulting with NATO about what to do in Libya. NATO is a UN based organization as reflected in their charter. What Constitutional authority does Obama have to place our troops under the command of a foreign international organization like UN based NATO? This is a violation of his oath of office even if he has unConstitutionally escalated the number of NATO troops in Afghanistan since he has taken office.

Our military forces are not Constitutionally authorized to serve as a global police force. Why are we? And why is the Navy putting ads on TV that describe them as a "Global Force for Good" when there is no Constitutional authority for our troops to be used in such a capacity? The States contracted with a Federal government for protection from foreign invasion, not to use our citizens and economic capacity to serve the needs of an international organization like the UN. How is intervention in Libya serving to protect us from foreign invasion.

So, for this columnist to describe conservatives as bashing Obama is a manipulation and misuse of the term conservative. A conservative wants less foreign intervention and adherence to the U.S. Constitution not a larger debt crisis and the sacrifice of our troops and national wealth at the altar and expense of the United Nations.

Obama is the President of the U.S. not the Secretary General of the U.N. and I would applaud no action on Libya. It is their problem not ours and we should not make it our problem. We have enough to resolve right here and nations we have invaded already to get out of that are costing all of us $Billions per week with a debt situation that is declining to a danger level quite rapidly with $Trillion plus annual Federal deficits.

Posted by: tfjnow | March 8, 2011 3:06 PM | Report abuse

"I think Reagan would just send a flight of F-18s in there and kill Gaddafi.."

uh, no. Reagan was smart enough to know to get the heck out of dodge in the ME. He manned up, took full responsibility for the lebanon marine barracks bombing, and got us OUT of that region.

Reagan was a REAL conservative, not a neocon chicken-hawk, especially after Elliot Abrams screwed him royally.

Don't apply neocon to Reagan. No need to tarnish him like that.

Posted by: mfray | March 8, 2011 3:09 PM | Report abuse

IOWAHAWKEYE/"a. the neocons, who have, incidentally, been proven right about the broadly dispursed impulse among middle eastern peoples to be accorded basic democratic rights"

IOWA,everyone wants basic rights for everyone,the NeoCons didn't originate that idea,but the NCs are conflicted,because as much as they believe in rights for the Muslims,they fear those same rights because of the bad things that those rights will enable them to do.

Posted by: rcaruth | March 8, 2011 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Our federal deficit should file a paternity suit to make the Conservatives acknowledge it as their child... Thing is, they refuse to connect the dots to see how funding the Iraq War with borrowed funded helped balloon our current deficit.

Posted by: SageThrasher | March 8, 2011 1:09 PM
--------------
Another liberal assertion belied by fact. In 2007 - the last Bush budget with a Republican House & Senate - the budget deficit was $163B. The budget deficit in Obama's first year was $1.416T. In his second year the deficit was $1.291T. This year the deficit is expected to reach $1.65T. The deficit for just last month - one month! - was a record $223B, higher than the Bush deficit for all of 2007.

But the deficit is the responsibility of conservatives? Yeesh!

Posted by: paco33 | March 8, 2011 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Conservative concern over the slaughter of Libyan innocents would be a lot more believable were it displayed more consistently. Where was the conservative concern over the slaughter of innocent Somalians? Apparently, the identity of the slaughterer is the driving factor for conservatives, not the degree of innocence of the slaughtered.

Obama seems to me to be striking the right course. I see no justification to submit our military to yet another foreign entanglement in yet another country that is not an historical ally. This is the reason I support downsizing our military in size and expenditure. Not to limit the options of an Obama administration, but rather to limit the options of an administration with the thinking and temperament of a Bush/Cheney type.

Posted by: truthwillout | March 8, 2011 4:06 PM | Report abuse

mfray: "uh, no. Reagan was smart enough to know to get the heck out of dodge in the ME. He manned up, took full responsibility for the lebanon marine barracks bombing, and got us OUT of that region." Mfray, evidently you are too young, or too old, to remember 1986, when Reagan (with Thatcher's support; they did not receive overflight permission from France or Spain, so the mission lasted twice as long as it needed to) sent approximately 40 -- including 18 F-111s, which is a lot of F-111s -- to bomb Libya.

Mustangs79: "What would you be basing this on, and how could anyone be this blase about a military intervention into a hostile country?"

I'm basing that opinion on personal experience and recent US military history. If you think Libya poses a material anti-aircraft threat to the USN and USAF, I understand your concerns, but I don't believe you know much about current US capabilities and recent experience. In respect of your comment that I'm blase, you seem to have reading comprehension problems. I don't support a military strike on Libya. I'm just saying that it would be roughly as dangerous as any other low-level training exercise, and probably less so.

rcauth, you've just claimed as universal Paul Wolfowitz' and Doug Feith's and George Bush's central strategic tenet, the neocon idea that going to war to commit democracy makes the world safer. I didn't understand your second point, but it seems to be of the sort that says, "But those bad neocons are racist when it comes to actually supporting muslim liberation movements." Am I right?

Posted by: IowaHawkeye | March 8, 2011 4:20 PM | Report abuse

truthwillout, this isn't another partisan soccer game. John Kerry is calling now for the cratering of Libyan aerodromes.

Posted by: IowaHawkeye | March 8, 2011 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Another liberal assertion belied by fact. In 2007 - the last Bush budget with a Republican House & Senate - the budget deficit was $163B. The budget deficit in Obama's first year was $1.416T. In his second year the deficit was $1.291T. This year the deficit is expected to reach $1.65T. The deficit for just last month - one month! - was a record $223B, higher than the Bush deficit for all of 2007.

But the deficit is the responsibility of conservatives? Yeesh!
*************************
If I recall correctly, Pres. Bush chose not to include the costs for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in his budgets, but given the economy cratered in 2008, comparing the 2007 and 2009 budgets is not a particularly good comparison because of everything that happened in between. To me, it's like comparing the rise in defense spending between 1937 and 1943 without acknowledging World War II.

I'm basing that opinion on personal experience
***********************
You've done the budget for a military intervention into a North African country, and you can guarantee the cost will be negligible?

Posted by: mustangs79 | March 8, 2011 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Whatever we do, it should be with the support of the UN, the EU and the Arab world. I'm glad we have a President who thinks before he acts. These conservatives calling for military action are the same idiots that got us into the 3 trillion dollar mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Posted by: CharlesS | March 8, 2011 5:01 PM | Report abuse

"Conservative concern over the slaughter of Libyan innocents would be a lot more believable were it displayed more consistently. Where was the conservative concern over the slaughter of innocent Somalians? Apparently, the identity of the slaughterer is the driving factor for conservatives, not the degree of innocence of the slaughtered.

Obama seems to me to be striking the right course. I see no justification to submit our military to yet another foreign entanglement in yet another country that is not an historical ally. This is the reason I support downsizing our military in size and expenditure. Not to limit the options of an Obama administration, but rather to limit the options of an administration with the thinking and temperament of a Bush/Cheney type.

Posted by: truthwillout"

There WAS conservative concern over Somali civilians. Conservatives supported sending in humanitarian relief (Operation Provide Relief) for those suffering Somalis. Bush 41 was President at the time.

As for your desire to limit the military, I think you do not have a grasp of the benefits of a large and powerful US military that can project that power and only see the possible negative effects. It's because of the US military that commerce can freely transit the planet. And while there is no way to prove a negative, how many times have we staved off attack (either at home or somewhere abroad) because someone was loathe to risk US retaliation? I'd be willing to bet that the number is not insignificant.

Posted by: RitchieEmmons | March 8, 2011 5:03 PM | Report abuse

"Whatever we do, it should be with the support of the UN, the EU and the Arab world. I'm glad we have a President who thinks before he acts. These conservatives calling for military action are the same idiots that got us into the 3 trillion dollar mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Posted by: CharlesS"

The support of the UN, EU and Arab world? The US should never submit to *any* of these entities when conducting foreign policy, let alone all three of them. They are either ineffectual, duplicitous or insidious. Or some combination of the three.

And as for the "trillion dollar mistake" of Afghanistan, what was your suggestion for responding to those that planned the 9/11 attacks? Ask the UN to pass a resolution?

And as for a president who "thinks before he acts," what kind of quip is that? That Bush 43 didn't think before acting? That he called for the invasion of Afghanistan by the time the 2nd tower fell? It was a month after 9/11 that we went into Afghanistan. Iraq then? Bush "thinked" his way all through getting a UN resolution and Congressional support (which was overwhelming) before invading that country. Or was all that just unthinking warmongering?

As for Obama "thinking" before acting, there's a difference between thinking and then acting, and thinking and then thinking some more, and then some more, and then some more, and then calling for a meeting. At some point the president has to be a leader of a country and *act*. Not merely be a perpetually pontificating college professor. Obama will give a lovely speech about "bearing witness" to events and denouncing "violence," but then barely lifts a finger about it.

Anyway, I want to hear what your plan was to deal with the terrorists that planned 9/11.

Posted by: RitchieEmmons | March 8, 2011 5:25 PM | Report abuse

In my considered opinion that I have the audacity to think is at all important despite the fact that I have relatively little knowledge of Libya, it's leadership, our history with them, US foreign policy in general, or indeed any area of basic knowledge aside from video games and explicit internet content, I think we should just BOMB the whole region.

I mean, all this nuance and trying to work with people who hate each other just a little less than they hate a religious minority for reasons that go back hundreds of years? It's all just too much to think about. Then there's the OTHER guys, you know Russia and China and all them. What will THEY do? I don't know but you can bet it won't be handing out jeans and apple pie.

Why can't things be more simple, like when we were fighting Nazi's? They were bad and everyone knew it. NOW you have all of this complication, all this damn thinking and planning and hemming and hawing and on and on it goes. Now our bombs and tanks don't magically make things better, they make it worse! Now, instead of liberating people from oppressive regimes and brutal dictators, those people have the nerve to tell us we are an occupying foreign power and we should leave! What the hell!?

You know, I just wish that there were these people, like a whole biiiig mess of 'em that actually knew about this stuff and thought about this stuff and came up with ideas of how to handle these situations when and as they come up so I can just go back to playing little big planet and looking at pretty pictures of p****.

What? There are? Well what do they have to say?

Posted by: ashtar377 | March 8, 2011 5:36 PM | Report abuse

"Uh, no. Pletka is a neoconservative, not a true conservative, as in to conserve. "

Was President Theodore Roosevelt the conservationist a true conservative?

Posted by: aardunza | March 8, 2011 5:41 PM | Report abuse

What is it with all this "Lybia" ? Is that an acceptable alternative spelling to Libya? Not in my world, it isn't. My dictionary's geographical names goes: Lyallpur, Lycabettus, Lycaonia, Lycia, Lydda, Lydia, so NO Lybia allowed, got it?!

Hey, reading on the Corner yesterday about the long answers on the Monday NYT crossword puzzle, somebody light-heartedly threatened the "red pen" in relation to a mention of Hamlet's "monologue" , which struck me as being a nice clue for the longish answer "The Gulag Archipelago." Nice, huh? Oops, wrong blog again, but hey, my dialup Win95/98 antique won't get through the insane computational complexity of their log-in procedure to let me comment there, so here's as good a place as any! :-)

Posted by: aardunza | March 8, 2011 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Go RitchieE and goooo The Hawk from Ioway! Yes, we're all Iowans today, even President Ford with his great opening line at an Ames appearance once (dating me, what the heck) "It's great to be here at Ohio State, er, Iowa State!"

But we sure are as conflicted as anyone, for sure, mr. rcaruth. How else to explain keeping Tom Harkin vs. Chuck Grassley for our two senators for thirty odd years, what? Sorry, Oprah made 'em do it, we're suckers when those celebs show up in our Fields of Dreams here, just watch how you open the windows on a breezy summer day after the honey-wagon have spread their offerings.

Posted by: aardunza | March 8, 2011 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: RitchieEmmons | March 8, 2011 5:03 PM

As for your desire to limit the military, I think you do not have a grasp of the benefits of a large and powerful US military that can project that power and only see the possible negative effects. It's because of the US military that commerce can freely transit the planet.

________________________________

A blatantly false assertion. There is nothing getting in the way of commerce anywhere. America wants, it, Europe wants it and Asia wants it. Even Bin Laden himself has said that if AQ were to take control fo an oil producing region, they would still have to sell the stuff to someone.

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 8, 2011 6:36 PM | Report abuse

And while there is no way to prove a negative, how many times have we staved off attack (either at home or somewhere abroad) because someone was loathe to risk US retaliation? I'd be willing to bet that the number is not insignificant.

____________________________________

I'd be willing to bet that the number is insignificant, because only those with a powerful navy or airforce could do it. That means a handful of states, who have nothing to gain from doing so.

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 8, 2011 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: RitchieEmmons | March 8, 2011 5:25 PM
The US should never submit to *any* of these entities when conducting foreign policy, let alone all three of them. They are either ineffectual, duplicitous or insidious. Or some combination of the three.

Does that go for all states? Do you advocate the abolition of the UN?
“And as for the "trillion dollar mistake" of Afghanistan, what was your suggestion for responding to those that planned the 9/11 attacks? Ask the UN to pass a resolution?”
How about going after the guys that did it, rather than occupy the place, build a pipeline and regime change it?
“Bush "thinked" his way all through getting a UN resolution and Congressional support (which was overwhelming) before invading that country.”

Yes Bush though long and hard about the lies he used to justify the Iraq invasion.

“Anyway, I want to hear what your plan was to deal with the terrorists that planned 9/11.”

How about going after the guys who did it? Bush said he wasn't interested is Bin Laden.

Posted by: Shingo1 | March 8, 2011 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Bin Laden is too hard to find.

Libya is much easier to find.

It's on all the maps.

Posted by: Mannie_Davis | March 8, 2011 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Mfray my humblest apologies.

Posted by: eddiehaskall | March 8, 2011 9:33 PM | Report abuse

Don't you just love Jennifer's short, active, impact verb choices in her headlines? Not denounce, or criticize, but "bash." The left "wigs out." Yes, "has conniption fits" just wouldn't quite cut it there. Keep it up(down?) JR, this is why you're getting the big bucks. Simply marvelin' at your marvelousness even more than Stan and Lee both. (Oh, goody, double the pun again time!:-))

Posted by: aardunza | March 9, 2011 12:39 AM | Report abuse

Looks like we’re leaning on the Saudis to provide arms and assistance, the State Department is in charge. We’re screwed.

I’m with Blackfive:
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2011/03/now-would-be-a-good-time-to-quit-screwing-around.html

No “no-fly” zone, just move in quickly to destroy Gaddafi’s tanks and aircraft, provide weapons, medical supplies, and food, drop some leaflets, but get that bastard out of there. Give the opposition a fighting chance, then stand back and provide minimal support as required.

Posted by: SCMike1 | March 9, 2011 1:29 AM | Report abuse

Ritchie said:
"Anyway, I want to hear what your plan was to deal with the terrorists that planned 9/11."
-------------------------------------------

Listen to Paul Wolfowitz and go all liberal/neocon/hopey-changey by invading and occupying Iraq.

That'll show those who planned 9/11 how smart we are.

Neo/non-cons took the bait, and now have us bogged down in two ME countries draining trillions out of us REAL Americans and now they want to go into a third country.

It's like Thelma and Louise, and Ground Hog Day.

Posted by: mfray | March 9, 2011 8:31 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company