So Much for Sympatico.
It's no secret that I'm no fan of Barack HUSSEIN Obama. I don't make any secret of it, and I am completely unafraid to express that. However, there have been times that I've been forced to agree with him. I'd thought that another one of those days had arrived, as Obama had refrained from involving the United States in the Lybian civil warfighting. I would not have put American forces in there, outside of Special Forces or SeALs or CIA Military Special Projects. They would not have been there for training or assisting (Foreign Internal Defense - http://www.goarmy.com/special-forces/primary-missions/foreign-internal-defense.html). Their only mission would have been special reconnaissance (http://www.goarmy.com/special-forces/primary-missions/special-reconnaissance.html), counterterrorism (http://www.goarmy.com/special-forces/primary-missions/counterterrorism.html) and unconventional warfare (http://www.goarmy.com/special-forces/primary-missions/unconventional-warfare.html).
Why?
SPECIAL RECONNAISSANCE: We don't know the ground truth in Libya. We don't know if this is really a democracy movement, or civil unrest fomented by outside sources looking to take over Libya and foment an islamic state. Gadaffi Duck, himself...
...has expressed fears that the terrorist group, al-Qaeda (spawned by the Muslim Brotherhood that Barack Obama has endorsed for open government of Egypt, by the way), is responsible for what's going on, or that they will take advantage of it and move in on him:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8391632/Libya-the-West-and-al-Qaeda-on-the-same-side.html
It's just as true that he's a nut, too, but still. He does have a valid point, and the Obama Regime is doing very little to destroy al-Qaeda, these days. Special recon teams dispatched throughout the country, listening in on communications and talking to informants, would be used to find out who the major players are in this uprising, so we could react accordingly.
COUNTERTERRORISM: In the event al-Qaeda, or any other terrorist organization, is found to be in the driver's seat, or angling to get there, SOF would have orders to kill them, immediately. Head shots at long range with anti-material rifles should do the trick.
Unconventional Warfare: Conducting combat operations inside Libya would, necessarily, be both covert and clandestine. Forces would kill targets and their support personnel, and destroy infrastructure. This would have to look like consequences of the civil war, as the US could not be allowed to look like an active participant. Perhaps even night-time cruise missile strikes could be used, under cover of indigenous military artillery barrages against civilians.
Bottom line: we don't know who we're dealing with. Gadaffi Duck is bad and a dictator, but he could be replaced with someone a lot worse:
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/could-gaddafis-departure-lead-to-another-somalia-or-afghanistan/question-1547957/
So, I agreed with Obama on this one. However, I'm pretty sure his staying out of the matter was more due to his cluelessness and incompetence, than caution, cleverness and aforethought.
Then, this happened:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mHK5l_stYcE
From http://www.therightscoop.com/obama-authorized-military-action-against-libya/#disqus_thread
This is absolutely asinine.
We've launched OVER 100 CRUISE MISSILES, we're being (naturally) criticized by people with dirty rags on their heads...
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/20/video-us-launches-stealth-bombers-more-than-100-cruise-missiles-against-libya/
...and, yet, we don't even have a definable mission:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVYhHcqhiUE&feature=player_embedded
While this is, at least at this point in time, restricted to naval bombardments/strikes against land-based targets (and probably aircraft), we shouldn't be involved in this, at all. Not until we see who's got their cards on the table, and what hands they're playing. Like some guy on the radio said: 'there's nothing worse than a wimp that's got something to prove'. Obama's shown himself to be absolutely lacking in any semblance of strength, instead revealing himself to be in possession of a spinal column similar in consistency to wet angel hair pasta. Now that he's being called a wimp, he's trying to show the rest of the world how tough, bad and supercool he is.
It seems like he makes a conscious effort to avoid doing the right thing. Had this been the work of former president Bush, the screaming would be building toward crescendo, right about now, on every network, in every magazine, in every newspaper.
Bush is a warmonger.
Bush is involving America in yet another unnecessary war.
Bush falsely accusing another country of having WMD (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2011/me_libya0237_03_07.asp), to cover up and justify yet another of his illegal wars.
Etc.
And yet, where's the criticism from the left?
My far left girlfriend would rather stick her head in the sand and for me not to talk about this kind of stuff, but somebody's got to. Let's face facts: Barack Obama is bad for America. He's an economic illiterate, and he's got the political savvy of a high schooler. He is the quintessential empty suit, unable to even woo the French (who are now trying to become the new leaders of the Free World, since we've a president that hates freedom and considers himself nothing more than a citizen of the world). Obama is the harbinger of "hope & change" for America? Very few things are further from the truth.
Why?
SPECIAL RECONNAISSANCE: We don't know the ground truth in Libya. We don't know if this is really a democracy movement, or civil unrest fomented by outside sources looking to take over Libya and foment an islamic state. Gadaffi Duck, himself...
...has expressed fears that the terrorist group, al-Qaeda (spawned by the Muslim Brotherhood that Barack Obama has endorsed for open government of Egypt, by the way), is responsible for what's going on, or that they will take advantage of it and move in on him:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8391632/Libya-the-West-and-al-Qaeda-on-the-same-side.html
It's just as true that he's a nut, too, but still. He does have a valid point, and the Obama Regime is doing very little to destroy al-Qaeda, these days. Special recon teams dispatched throughout the country, listening in on communications and talking to informants, would be used to find out who the major players are in this uprising, so we could react accordingly.
COUNTERTERRORISM: In the event al-Qaeda, or any other terrorist organization, is found to be in the driver's seat, or angling to get there, SOF would have orders to kill them, immediately. Head shots at long range with anti-material rifles should do the trick.
Unconventional Warfare: Conducting combat operations inside Libya would, necessarily, be both covert and clandestine. Forces would kill targets and their support personnel, and destroy infrastructure. This would have to look like consequences of the civil war, as the US could not be allowed to look like an active participant. Perhaps even night-time cruise missile strikes could be used, under cover of indigenous military artillery barrages against civilians.
Bottom line: we don't know who we're dealing with. Gadaffi Duck is bad and a dictator, but he could be replaced with someone a lot worse:
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/could-gaddafis-departure-lead-to-another-somalia-or-afghanistan/question-1547957/
So, I agreed with Obama on this one. However, I'm pretty sure his staying out of the matter was more due to his cluelessness and incompetence, than caution, cleverness and aforethought.
Then, this happened:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mHK5l_stYcE
From http://www.therightscoop.com/obama-authorized-military-action-against-libya/#disqus_thread
This is absolutely asinine.
We've launched OVER 100 CRUISE MISSILES, we're being (naturally) criticized by people with dirty rags on their heads...
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/20/video-us-launches-stealth-bombers-more-than-100-cruise-missiles-against-libya/
...and, yet, we don't even have a definable mission:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVYhHcqhiUE&feature=player_embedded
While this is, at least at this point in time, restricted to naval bombardments/strikes against land-based targets (and probably aircraft), we shouldn't be involved in this, at all. Not until we see who's got their cards on the table, and what hands they're playing. Like some guy on the radio said: 'there's nothing worse than a wimp that's got something to prove'. Obama's shown himself to be absolutely lacking in any semblance of strength, instead revealing himself to be in possession of a spinal column similar in consistency to wet angel hair pasta. Now that he's being called a wimp, he's trying to show the rest of the world how tough, bad and supercool he is.
It seems like he makes a conscious effort to avoid doing the right thing. Had this been the work of former president Bush, the screaming would be building toward crescendo, right about now, on every network, in every magazine, in every newspaper.
Bush is a warmonger.
Bush is involving America in yet another unnecessary war.
Bush falsely accusing another country of having WMD (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2011/me_libya0237_03_07.asp), to cover up and justify yet another of his illegal wars.
Etc.
And yet, where's the criticism from the left?
My far left girlfriend would rather stick her head in the sand and for me not to talk about this kind of stuff, but somebody's got to. Let's face facts: Barack Obama is bad for America. He's an economic illiterate, and he's got the political savvy of a high schooler. He is the quintessential empty suit, unable to even woo the French (who are now trying to become the new leaders of the Free World, since we've a president that hates freedom and considers himself nothing more than a citizen of the world). Obama is the harbinger of "hope & change" for America? Very few things are further from the truth.