Libya's Endgame: You Lose!
There will be no clear political endgame, other than the fact that people will die and in the long run, it could be American blood! We have a very unsuccessful, history of arming insurgencies, so again, what have we learned? Apparently, nothing because we are speaking of a repeat in histories, again. Angola, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Sudan, Vietnam, and again we are trying to complete a circle of complete stupidity. Al-Qaeda fighting Al-Qaeda, hm to which one is the lesser evil? The old fighting the new and we wish to do what, why, because someone might not like us if we do not. Wake up people, there are many out there wanting us to fail but first they too want their piece of pie! Two diplomatic sources at the United Nations independently confirmed that Washington, via Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, gave the go-ahead for Saudi Arabia to invade Bahrain and crush the pro-democracy movement in their neighbor in exchange for a "yes" vote by the Arab League for a no-fly zone over Libya - the main rationale that led to United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 but only after we first “invaded” Libya’s airspace with strikes from the sky. Nine out of their 22 members of the Arab League voted for the no-fly zone. They are not like Congress, you are not there, you lose that right to vote, majority wins, no shut-down of a Fly Zone. Libya is not all it is cracked up to be. There are more forces at play than simple, people are dying and the USA must come to their aid. No, much more is on this game board and to find out, one must not just rely upon our news but that from the BBC, Canada, Asia and , of course Saudi.
Back when President Obama was first introduced to a foray into foreign policy, he made an acute statement; “I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars,” well, apparently this must not be a dumb war because he used his Executive Powers to incubate this into an ideological statement with that to NATO and in setting up one of the last countries to not be subordinated to Africom, another NATO myriad "partnership,” but first you have to win and at what the cost; not just in dollars. According to Politico.com/news, “McCain also said that and he and Lieberman were in talks with Senate Foreign Relationship chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) to draft an authorization resolution he’d like to see finished “soon,” perhaps as early as next week. Kerry’s office confirmed the bipartisan talks. “One of the concerns that we have to have is that we don’t know very much about the opposition,” Gates said in response to a question from Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich), adding that the rebels are “disparate and disaggregated” across the country. “We know a handful of the leaders [for whom] we have biographical information and some history.” Again, the old against the new, Al-Qaeda fighting Al-Qaeda for control of a “new” country. Then, today, April 05, 2011, Qaddafi's son or siblings are willing to concede power to them, in order to end the conflict. How far do these apples fall from the tree? Really does not matter as war means, fighting for dollars and there are too many hands on this game-board for it to end swiftly. Players include the Pentagon, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Saudi Arabia, the Arab League's Moussa, and Qatar, Al-Khalifa dynasty in Bahrain, assorted weapons contractors, and the usual CIA to Contractors suspects eager to scope out the in to outs and this does not include the old ARMCO armada thinking back to the good ole days before Qaddafi, who founded and played in the Libyan oil and gas industry! Endgame in sight, where?
Pick a country, any country, Angola, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Sudan, Vietnam, and the song plays on; where did they go? To what was our cost. First the operatives, the Contractors, CIA, Arms importation, Advisers, NATO pull out, we stay in and the casket manufacturers even get on game. Which is the lesser of two evils in a coupe and especially if “One of the concerns that we have to have is that we don’t know very much about the opposition?” but we are backing them.
I am not convinced that vital American interests are at stake there! I believe that the President should come to Congress to seek approval of continuing this involvement. Our key concern remains the lack of Congressional involvement and oversight. The War Powers Act of 1973, created after the Vietnam War was to ensure legislative checks and balances before and during wartime situations. The Presidents failure to go to the American people before this engagement represents a breakdown in relations between the government and the populace of a democratic republic and what of our Government shutdown, was this not foreseen in the plan with Libya or did not the President forget, if it shuts down, so to does it affect the morel within our Armed forces too. Home groceries to bills not paid on time just adds more stress to those in harms way. It's hell of a way to run a business, I mean Government? The War Powers Act allows the President to use military force for 60 days without Congressional approval. I believe this act needs to either be revised or removed altogether, as it gives just a bit too much power, to one without rules of engagement; endgame, you lose!
US Senate in 2012 State of Florida, for the
Florida Whig Party; Principles before
Party, Personality, and Profit, with Deeds not Words
WWWD - What Would Washington Do?
Would George Fight or Surrender Over Today's Budget?
Ten simple words to live by:
PRINCIPLES BEFORE PARTY, PERSONALITY, AND
PROFITS, WITH DEEDS NOT WORDS.
Paul Grant Truesdell, Chairman
Ocala, Florida - January 2009
It's Just That Simple, Send the Modern Tories Packing.