Of course, the breaking news of the day:
(Reuters) – Muammar Gaddafi was killed by Libyans he once scorned as “rats,” succumbing to wounds, some seemingly inflicted after his capture by fighters who overran his last redoubt on Thursday in his hometown of Sirte.
…
The killing or capture of senior aides, including possibly two sons, as an armored convoy braved NATO air strikes in a desperate bid to break out of Sirte, may ease fears of diehards regrouping elsewhere – though cellphone video apparently of Gaddafi alive and being beaten may inflame his sympathizers.
A Libyan official said Gaddafi, 69, was killed in custody.
“We confirm that all the evils, plus Gaddafi, have vanished from this beloved country,” interim Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril said in Tripoli as the body was delivered, a prize of war, to Misrata, the city whose siege and suffering at the hands of Gaddafi’s forces made it a symbol of the rebel cause.
I get the feeling that the Obama administration supported the Arab uprisings. And that the Obama administration supporters implicitly did as well. But I wonder how this differs from past Administrations and their removal of “evil dictators”?
You mean like the invasion of Iraq? Where we sent tens of thousands of US soldiers to force regime change? And you’re trying to find a difference between that and now, where you just have a suspicion that Obama “supported” a revolution?
You mean like the invasion of Iraq?
Yes.
Now, before I respond, remember, I am the guy that supports water boarding. I approve of techniques like making someone stand up for awhile until they tell me their secrets. I am all in favor of making them listen to WHAM! until they show me where the bad guys live.
More than that, I’m good with finding bad guys and shooting ’em. As I get older, I may pause more than I used to, and I suspect that my pause represents a maturing view of the world and how it works. But generally, if we have a religious leader that plots against the US on foreign soil and plans and carries out attacks I am on the side of the room that would approve of the missile strike that kills him. Be this Bin Laden or that American born cleric dude.
However, I think that it’s been Democrats that have opposed such actions in the past.
So yeah, I’m wondering what the difference is in removing evil dictators. Is it okay for the United States to act to remove foreign heads of state? If the answer is “yes, it IS okay” then we can have conversations on how to do that. Maybe initiating a ground war isn’t the best way to get that done. Maybe the method Obama used is better, just bomb ’em. However, the tone from the Left concerning actions like this is that the object is not a valid one.
Further, it might be valid to say that what we were/are doing in Libya is simply helping a people revolt of their own free will. At least that’s what I think the mission was when we started. To give the rebels a level playing ground by grounding Libya’s air superiority. However, since then, the mission has expanded greatly.
Would we have supported Obama had we known the end result would be the capture and then murder of Muammar Gaddafi? Remember, even Saddam Hussein had a trial.
Iraq cost thousands of US lives, ended up with a pro-Iranian government in power (though since the central government doesn’t control the country that’s not as big a deal as it sounds), and was over $2 trillion, while Libya was $1 billion, no dead Americans and the Libyans doing the job on their own with help from the West sanctioned by the UN, I’d say Obama had a much more effective foreign policy in the service of both US interests and human rights.
Democrats have never been as dovish as the far left. Obama’s policy is a bit more like George H.W. Bush’s in that he wanted UN support, a broad coalition, and in this case it was helping an indigenous uprising through limited air support. I don’t think its smart to remove every dictator and certainly not smart to launch an invasion to take over another country and try to control how it sets up a new government. Obama did it right.
I’d say Obama had a much more effective foreign policy in the service of both US interests and human rights.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d say that too! In the sphere of evil guy killing, Obama has been far FAR more effective than Dubya. Not even close.
However, that isn’t what Obama ran on. And it’s not what the Liberal Left supports. They want to capture and try these guys. They wanna negotiate and deal with these guys.
Make no mistake about it, I support Obama on this one. I support him sending troops to kill LRA guys in Africa. If I could have it my way, I make a list of the world’s bad guys. Rank ’em. And the smart bomb the snot out of ’em.
But that’s not the Left.
Their silence is deafening.
It would appear that Democrats are tribal too.