Monday, March 28, 2011

What is Obama's Mission in Libya?

Ross Douthat comments on President Obama's address to the nation on the Libya intervention, "A War By Any Name":

Tonight, in a speech that probably should have been delivered before American planes began flying missions over North Africa, Barack Obama will try to explain to a puzzled nation why we are at war with Libya.

Not that the word “war” will pass his lips, most likely. In press briefings last week, our Libyan campaign was euphemized into a “kinetic military action” and a “time-limited, scope-limited military action.” (The online parodies were merciless: “Make love, not time-limited, scope-limited military actions!” “Let slip the muzzled canine unit of kinetic military action!”) Advertising tonight’s address, the White House opted for “the situation in Libya,” which sounds less like a military intervention than a spin-off vehicle for the famous musclehead from MTV’s “Jersey Shore.”

But by any name or euphemism, the United States has gone to war, and there are questions that the president must answer. Here are the four biggest ones: What are our military objectives? ...

Keep reading for the rest of it. Interesting though is how divided the administration remains on Libya. Robert Gates saying the mission's not in the vital interests of the United States? Well, check with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, I guess, since she's saying Libya's a greater interest to the U.S. than is Syria, or something? Well, what the heck? At least neocon-bashing Juan Cole knows what's going on: "An Open Letter to the Left on Libya." (At Memeorandum.)


dave in boca said...

Hillarious is simply unable to say what is obvious to all Middle East observers---Syria is a client-state of Iran and while the Libyan fiasco is in full throttle, one can't get the Shi'ite/Alawite brutal dictatorships' noses out of whack.

She was speaking off-the-cuff and probably wanted to say that the Assads, pere-et-fils, are two brutal violent totalitarians whose five [5!] "intelligence agencies" hold the Syrian people in total thrall to their socialist agenda. Remember that the Ba'athist Parties in both their Alawite Syrian & Sunni-minority Saddamist manifestations are total dirigiste statist socialist "democracies."

And of course the Syrian-led series of assassinations that allowed the Hezbollah [which Biden in 2008 insisted we had "thrown out of Lebanon"] to gain power early this year are hardly enough reason for Hillarious to get her own nose out of whack...!

Old Rebel said...

Well, when you're right, you're right -- David Horowitz is the man!

Bigol said...

If the left leaning media was close to being rational this would be the headlines today: