Monday, March 21, 2011

American Military in Libya Is Terrible Policy

What good is going to come from American military involvement in Libya? Getting rid of Moammar Gadhafi seems to be the only logical reason. This "protect the oil" reason seems flawed.

Let's get this right: America is leading a UN-sanctioned military effort to keep the Libyans safe. It was suppose to be a no-fly-zone enforcement effort but they have shown this also includes a no-drive-zone.

Obama wants Gadhafi to step down. Where's he suppose to go? Has Obama given him a palatable exit strategy? Not that we know of.

Who are the rebels? Will the rebels and the eventual leaders be better than Gadhafi? We have no idea.

We are trying to protect the Libyan people. Who are the Libyan people? There are over a hundred tribes, more tribal-oriented than Libyan nationalists. Those that support Gadhafi benefit from his policies. Those on the outside want what the insiders have. If they change positions, who becomes the "bad guys" then.

The cost of foreign wars are always money pits. Missiles/ammo, fuel, war/hazard pay, etc. It does not take long for the bill to reach a billion dollars. And the bill will continue to escalate.

This is America's war, not the UNs or NATOs. Why all of a sudden do these rebels who we don't know, become the focus of our good intentions?

American military involvement in Libya is terrible foreign policy.

No comments: