Is the enemy of our enemy our friend?

That isn't the point. The point is that we rushed into Libya. Seems for all the talk of rushing into war recently, what we did in Libya would be looked at with a similar attitude. Glad Qadaffi is gone from power, but what are we going to do about this random killing that is going on now? Random killing, I might add, by the side we backed.

 

On another note, the Cameron-Sarkozy victory lap around Tripoli smacks richly of that "Mission: Accomplished" speech. All they needed was a Harrier to drop them off in the main square in Tripoli.

 

So you're saying our foreign policy is dictated by realism? Kissinger and Morgenthau are shocked.

 

Or Reagan arming the future Taliban and some guy named Osama bin Laden so they could fight off the evil Soviets in Afghanistan.

 

For that matter, we may have a similar problem in Egypt. Yes, Mubarak was a dictator and it's commendable that the Egyptian people were able to rise up and topple him with relatively little bloodshed (certainly less than we've seen in Libya). But the regime that replaces Mubarak, even if Democratically elected, could very easily be hostile to Israel and the United States.

 

I know. We had the whole "devil you know vs. the devil you don't know" debate at the time, and it still rings true. Libya wasn't Obama's fault entirely...yes it sucked the way he chose to authorize force, but it was UN backed and I don't remember anyone whining about how it should not have been done. As long as American troops aren't on the ground getting shot at I do have to say we are better off as a world with Qudaffi out of power (same as with Saddam Hussein out of power). However, it seems like human rights violations are pretty commonplace over there now...and the ones we backed are the ones killing people because they happen to be black.

That is one thing I am happy I never have to deal with...making decisions on how to move forward in the Middle East. Our next president has his (or her) hands full. And what frustrates me is that there has been NO discussion on foreign policy in any of the Republican debates. I want to know what everyone thinks before I decide on who to support.

 

President McCain would have gone in there guns ablazin' (anyone see his visit to Tripoli the other day, praising the so-called Islamists?) and this whole situation would have come up six months earlier.

Instead we've now at least had some time to get intel on these people, so we're not going in with a total blank slate. And it's given the transitional government time to, you know, govern.

 

In a historical context, this has been a cornerstone of US foreign policy since the end of WW II. Think about:

Fidel Castro as a freedom fighter in the hills of rural Cuba

Jonas Savimbi as a "liberator" in Angola

Josef Mobutu as a devotee of democracy in the Congo/Zaire

Etc...

That period of time since WW II has seen both major parties in the US as residents of the White House and both major parties of the US as the controling factions in the Congress. This is NOT a partisan statement in any way...

 

It wasn't taken as one, Jack. It's 100% true and that's why I said I am very happy it's not me that has to make these decisions. We gave bin Laden money and weapons as well, and look how that turned out. When you are the world's policeman you sometimes end up laying down with dogs and getting fleas.

It just sucks how we are on the side of people committing atrocities in Libya right now...but I guess there is not a whole lot we can do about it.