What’s wrong today:
Yesterday the Wrongologist said that the US and NATO had really created a No Drive Zone, not a No Fly Zone in Libya since we were providing tactical air support to the rebel forces. Despite that, I said that we should back President Obama’s play unless and until we saw mission creep that would put us in another Middle Eastern quagmire. It took 24 hours for us to start sliding down the slippery slope: The NYT tells us today (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/world/africa/30diplo.html) that our government is considering arming the ragtag bunch of 20-somethings that we call the rebels. The administration is seriously considering this because (1) we never simply had a humanitarian objective, we wanted Gaddifi gone, (2) air support isn’t enough to get him out of Libya and (3) the French are pressuring Obama to agree to arm the rebels.
So here’s what’s wrong: nobody in our government knows any of the following:
- Who we are arming?
- Will arming them be conclusive in an effort to oust Gaddifi?
- What will all the guns be used for once the revolution ends?
In fact, in an unintentionally hilarious comment, Gene A. Cretz, the American ambassador to Libya, is quoted by the NYT as saying that he was impressed by the democratic instincts of the opposition leaders and that he did not believe that they were dominated by extremists. But he said that there was no way to know if they were “100 percent kosher, so to speak”. (Emphasis by the Wrongologist) He might as well question their freshness.
And the French are pressuring us? Last week, I heard the Obama doctrine described as: “What would the French do…?” I laughed. But it is no longer a laughing matter, it is the correct description of the Obama Doctrine.
And it is so wrong.
