Creeping terror.
This hasn't been a good week for the Libya enterprise, despite all that has been said and done to push it along in the right direction. Seems like mission creep is taking hold a lot faster than anyone might have guessed possible. It's been reported that Obama has signed off on a finding to provide arms to the Libyan rebels and that C.I.A. operatives are on the ground and active in support of those forces. No surprise that the C.I.A. is there (it's the rare nation that has never been the dubious beneficiary of Agency visitors, either invited or not). But that we would learn about it a little more than one week into this campaign is curious. And the word is that they have brought in close air support, including A-10 Warthogs and the like.
A report by Pentagon correspondent Tom Bowman on NPR's Morning Edition was perhaps unintentionally illustrative of how badly this can go wrong:
"If their defeat is to be prevented, it's inevitable that they get weapons from somewhere else," says Frank Anderson, president of the Middle East Policy Council, a nonpartisan think tank. In the 1980s, he worked with the CIA, training Afghan rebels to fight the Soviets.
So... how did that Afghan thing turn out, anyhow? We are talking about a force that has no training, little leadership, few weapons, and no strategic resources to draw upon. Our operatives would effectively need to be their arms and legs, telling them where to move and when to shoot. That sounds, at best, like a formula for perpetual civil war and a divided Libya. However much I sympathize with Gaddafi's opponents, I honestly don't see how they can defeat an organized force. I'm not saying it's not possible - just unlikely, even with an assist from the Agency. So.... what the hell are we doing?
The trouble with Obama's splendid little war is that, if we were going to save the people of Benghazi by establishing a no-fly zone, we should have simply done so and gone no further. The outcome would not have been ideal - it will not be no matter what we do at this point. But trudging into yet another war is a patently bad idea for this country. If we had a draft (or a requirement that taxes be raised to cover every new conflict), this would never have even begun.
luv u,
jp
A report by Pentagon correspondent Tom Bowman on NPR's Morning Edition was perhaps unintentionally illustrative of how badly this can go wrong:"If their defeat is to be prevented, it's inevitable that they get weapons from somewhere else," says Frank Anderson, president of the Middle East Policy Council, a nonpartisan think tank. In the 1980s, he worked with the CIA, training Afghan rebels to fight the Soviets.
So... how did that Afghan thing turn out, anyhow? We are talking about a force that has no training, little leadership, few weapons, and no strategic resources to draw upon. Our operatives would effectively need to be their arms and legs, telling them where to move and when to shoot. That sounds, at best, like a formula for perpetual civil war and a divided Libya. However much I sympathize with Gaddafi's opponents, I honestly don't see how they can defeat an organized force. I'm not saying it's not possible - just unlikely, even with an assist from the Agency. So.... what the hell are we doing?
The trouble with Obama's splendid little war is that, if we were going to save the people of Benghazi by establishing a no-fly zone, we should have simply done so and gone no further. The outcome would not have been ideal - it will not be no matter what we do at this point. But trudging into yet another war is a patently bad idea for this country. If we had a draft (or a requirement that taxes be raised to cover every new conflict), this would never have even begun.
luv u,
jp
Comments