I have to wonder if there will be much discussion of Libya at the upcoming NATO meetings. Perhaps Ukraine provides a suitable excuse to pretend Libya doesn’t exist.
The results of the Maiden coup were equally foreseeable. It appears that our (and Europe’s) so-called “leaders” remain asleep at the switch. One might question whether Ukraine is worth saving from the Russians (see today’s post on its major problem), but if it is, the only thing which will save it is bringing Russia face-to-face with NATO in enforcing (partially — Crimea is a lost cause) the terms of the Budapest Memorandum.
To have a post-combat nation-building plan would’ve been to acknowledge that a) we’d been at war with the Qadaffi regime, b) thus we were responsible for post-war arrangements, and c) al-Qaeda was not dead, but actually a spreading threat. Obama could not do any of those. The great mystery is why, given all we know about him, did he go along with the Brits and the French in the first place. My guess is that he just didn’t think about the possible consequences at all.
Good call. It is appalling, especially since we know from insider accounts that Gates, Petreaus, and the JCS, among others, were opposed to intervention in Libya. In favor were mainly the WH heavily political team.
So, it seems that the militaristic warmongers were against the war, and the anti-war lefties were for it.
Rumsfeld at least had the mitigating circumstance of not having any recent example of the need for a clear and level-headed post-combat plan for security and political stability in the region. Obama had no such excuse, having been elected largely on the strength of the initial disaster in post-invasion Iraq.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. The irony is that the Bush administration clearly did learn from their early failures, implenting far better policies in the Surge period; Obama apparently was incapable of learning, even from what he was vocally criticising.
West shall not try to identify friends and foes in Middle East: To day’s friend is a foe the day after. They ha
West shall not try identify friend or foe in the messy Middle East (excepts for Iraël): To day’s friend is a foe day after. These tribes, armed organizations, political or religious parties, states administrations do not behave as per western standards. Religion is #1 priority. Between muslims they fight each other (as us) for political power control. But concerning foreign countries, they are immediately united against us, even if they don’t show up. They only understand military power backed by determination, they would consider God is with West. Simplistic, primitive, yes indeed, but real.
Let’s us figth themselves until a winner emerges. Then contend it geographically with a military sanity barrier, the only way for them to respect West.