Friday, March 18, 2011

Military involvement in Libya?

A U.N. resolution yesterday approved military action in Libya which may involve the U.S. Our military is apparently not excited by this prospect: According to Reuters:
A U.S. national security official familiar with current military planning and operations said there was enormous resistance among military commanders to any U.S. involvement in any kind of operation against Gaddafi's forces in Libya.
"The Pentagon does not want to get involved in this," said the official, who is familiar with recent discussions about a possible Libya operation which have been taking place in both Washington and among commanders in the region.
The official said that commanders were asking the Obama administration, "What do you want to get out of this ?" but had not gotten a clear answer.
Some conservatives have been slamming Obama for not taking action in Libya sooner. I disagree. We simply do not have the money (we're broke!!!) or manpower to insert our military everywhere. We need to pick our battles very carefully. Some things are matters of national security (or, like Iraq, were sincerely believed to be matters of national security). Even with all its oil, Libya is not a national security issue.

If our concerns are purely humanitarian, then let's invade North Korea or Iran instead. There we can kill two birds (the national security issue and the humanitarian issue) with one stone. 

If we say, "oh, no, the consequences are too grave to invade North Korea or Iran," then we look like the bully who will only pick on those who are too weak to fight back.

No comments: