OMG, I Agree With Michele Bachmann!

Font Size» Large | Small

Who's That Behind Those Foster Grants?

TWO BOMB HANGOVER - He's not going to go easily, but should we be the ones to try to make him?

In the midst of the crapstorm that has become life in these United States, I sometimes feel as if I’ve slipped into a parallel dimension populated exclusively by tea partiers, Glen Beck clones, Sarah Palin stand up comedians, and our reigning dizzy queen Michele Bachmann. That’s why when I agreed with one of her statements, I headed straight for the antipsychotics.

Please God, don’t let me die a “dittohead”!

The Maybe I’ll Certainly Run for President in 2012 Unless I Change My Mind Before Deciding to Redecide Again candidate laid into The Messiah™ for leading his uncoalesced coalition into Libya. Not surprisingly she’s against it, though I’m confident she would’ve been for it if Obama had decided against intervention. But this this time? I agree with her.

Doin’ the Tripoli Tango
Obama made a mistake in entering the fray. Michele and I agree there seems to be little compelling strategic US interest involved. As for the humanitarianism angle, there are places that DO involve strategic US interests AND plenty of poor wretches being ground under the jackboots of a dozen Col. Loony Toons and DickTaters. We aren’t feeling particularly humanitarian there, so WTF? The US simply cannot be the world’s cop. There’s an infinite supply of bad people and you can’t wipe them all out without weakening yourself. Even Bush the Lesser understood that, though he sometimes didn’t act that way.

I think Michele’s a little weak on the whole “al Qaeda” is afoot angle and by referring to the fiasco in the making as the “Obama Doctrine” she’s ignoring the fact that one decision does not a full doctrine make. These decisions should and are based on the conditions at the moment, whether they’re good or bad.

Oy VeyNow, we’re  seeing the ghosts of neo-conservatism on Obama. He’s apparently signed a “secret order” authorizing covert support for the Libyan rebels. We’re slow learners about this whole, “let’s have a big freedom party and call all the poor kids over for punch, cookies, and purple thumb votes” thing. See Exhibits A (Iraq), B (Afghanistan), C-Z (dozens of other places where we’ve intervened to no great or lasting effect).

In case you haven’t noticed, democracies ain’t easy. If they were, the US would be in a lot better shape than we are. Bringing freedom to people takes more than no-fly zones, 10+ year wars, or secret orders. It’s an illusive thing being imposed on countries that have no real government to begin with – much less a democratic one. It’s a step learning curve, particularly when you’re being shelled by heavy artillery.

What’s it All Not About?
The question here isn’t whether the Carebear acted too slow or too fast. The question isn’t that he pulled together a coalition – no matter how feeble it is. It’s not about using the UN for a fig leaf. It’s not about how or if he consulted Congress. It’s not about whether he’s more inconsistent than George, because they both were. It’s about why we went in and now that we’re there, how the hell we’re going to exit.

The secret order suggests he’s going down the same rabbit hole as our previous Emperor. We’re already hearing about how things are just going ducky and how we’ll be out of Gaddafistan within days or months. It all sounds distressingly like the nearly 8-years the Dub prattled on about how things would be over soon in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yeah, how’s that working out for us?

Never go into a battle unless you know what it means to win and how you will win the peace as well. If you’re stupid enough to go in and it becomes plain you had the intelligence of a donut to do it, figure out how you’re going to back out, gracefully or otherwise. The battlefield of statecraft is pock-marked by the bodies of countries that don’t learn those lessons. I don’t know about you, but I’m not in the mood for contributing more cannon fodder for a questionable war.

So Michele, hat’s off to you!

Maybe there’s hope for you yet.

Enhanced by Zemanta

5 thoughts on “OMG, I Agree With Michele Bachmann!

  1. The US has no problem at all watching Rwandans get slaughtered, or Ossetians, or Syrians, or Sudanese. Gosh, I wonder why we got all up in arms about Libya, when at least 3 of the 4 I just mentioned were plenty worse?

  2. Yeah we should have stayed out of it when we had the chance and now that we are in it we are in it for good.

  3. Having said that, however, unless we are really willing to do whatever it takes to get Gaddafi out of Libya — and fly-overs ain’t doing the job, folks — then we should never have gotten involved in Libya. If Gaddafi survives this thing and wipes out the opposition in spite of the international community’s “all means necessary to protect civilians” effort, we’ll have simply stuck Gaddafi with a sharp stick and made him angry and an angry Gaddafi has spelled terrorism in the past (Lockerby). What will the pay back be for a failed effort to remove Gaddafi look like? Not pretty, I’m sure.

  4. The problem? CNN had 24/7 reportage in Libya of Kaddafi’s troops, mercs and civilian militias making mince-meat out of the rebels and Kaddafi promising to show no mercy on a people who had done little more than dare to peacefully protest his dictatorship and then take up arms to defend themselves from slaughter. Obama was right: some countries can stand bye and watch dictators slaughter their own people but not the US.

    Yes, yes, we stand bye as such things go on in many places. The difference is we don’t have a front row seat 24/7 to the slaughter on compelling news video in those other places whereas we were actually watching civilians being mowed down by automatic fire in Libya.

    Plus, Americans have a soft spot for rebels (patriots?) rising up against despots for freedom from oppression as it puts us in mind of our own revolution. We instinctively want the revolutionaries to win and the idea of a despot defeating them and then slaughtering them wholesale while we watch is repugnant to us.