U.S. Military moving resources toward Libya

[Bob Wells]

I personally hope that President Obama listen to the advice of his military.

 

[Geo]

Bomb Libya. Bomb everybody. God bless America.

 

[Matt J]

In 2008 when gas spiked didn't we see an increase in vacationer volume?

Yep, and most of them stopped eating out the majority of their meals. Rental income leaves the area, most restaurants are locally owned and operated thus increasing the local economy.

In addition rates weren't generally raised from 2007-2008 and massive discounting kept units full.

 

[30ashopper]

President Obama, appearing Monday morning with Australia?s prime minister, tried to raise the pressure on Colonel Qaddafi further by talking about ?a range of potential options, including potential military options? against the embattled Libyan leader.

Despite Mr. Obama?s statement, interviews with military officials and other administration officials describe a number of risks, some tactical and others political, to American intervention in Libya.

Of most concern to the president himself, one high-level aide said, is the perception that the United States would once again be meddling in the Middle East, where it has overturned many a leader, including Saddam Hussein. Some critics of the United States in the region ? as well as some leaders ? have already claimed that a Western conspiracy is stoking the revolutions that have overtaken the Middle East.

?He keeps reminding us that the best revolutions are completely organic,? the senior official said, quoting the president.

At the same time, there are persistent voices ? in Congress and even inside the administration ? arguing that Mr. Obama is moving too slowly. They contend that there is too much concern about perceptions, and that the White House is too squeamish because of Iraq.

Furthermore, they say a military caught up in two difficult wars has exaggerated the risks of imposing a no-fly zone over Libya, the tactic discussed most often.

The American military is also privately skeptical of humanitarian gestures that put the lives of troops at risk for the cause of the moment, while being of only tenuous national interest.

Some of these critics seem motivated by political advantage. Others, including the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry, who is among Mr. Obama?s closest allies, warn of repeating mistakes made in Iraqi Kurdistan, Rwanda, and Bosnia and Herzegovina by failing to step in and halt a slaughter.

The most vocal camp, led by Senators John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee for president, and Joseph I. Lieberman, the Connecticut independent and another hawk on Libyan intervention, say the central justification for establishing a no-fly zone over Libya is that the rebel leaders themselves are seeking military assistance to end decades of dictatorship.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/world/middleeast/08policy.html

One of my biggest concerns over McCain was his lack of foresight on foreign policy. Clearly those concerns were valid. Kudos to President Obama, he gets it.

 

[scooterbug44]

Most Americans are woefully ignorant about our involvement in the Middle East.

We've been meddling and taking sides since our country was founded - and oddly enough people tend to remember that - especially when it happens in their lifetime.

 

[ASH]

The bigger threat in the middle east is too many countries going up in flames all around the Suez Canal. If that gets too hot to travel, we'll have major chaos from the ripple effect to imports.....including oil.

 

[Sheila]

Please clarify.

Clarify for me why it's a good idea? At some point our country needs to stop being the "police" of the rest of the world. If it's a mission of mercy...maybe. But please explain why we should send in troops otherwise?

 

[DuneAHH]

Clarify for me why it's a good idea? At some point our country needs to stop being the "police" of the rest of the world. If it's a mission of mercy...maybe. But please explain why we should send in troops otherwise?

Sheila I agree.

I listened to some 'expert' on talk radio the other day saying something to the effect that US' rhetoric about democracy carries with it the "responsibility to step up and be there" when it inspires country's populations to rise up against their oppressive govts. I call Baloney.

Does every parent/teacher/mentor that inspires have implicit responsibility for physically holding those hands forever? No. The best mentors know the value of letting the student figure it out on their own and work for what they really want.

Might be a good idea for our global nation building/savior mentality to get tabled until we manage to tidy up the fairly severe messes right here at home.