Obama’s War
Obama bashers who were calling the Libyan Revolution “Obama’s War,” have changed their tune now that it’s on the verge of being won. But instead of celebrating success, they act like they were hoping the U.S.A. would lose, so they could blame it on Obama. Their mean-spirited bleating exhibits the most contemptible characters outside of a Charles Dickens novel.
TV host, Lou Dobbs, described Obama as “desperate” for a foreign policy success. If desperation is what it takes, what a shame George Bush lacked it, just swaggered like a frat boy in a G-suit on a carrier deck under a “Mission Accomplished” banner. All he accomplished was a devastating loss of American lives, an endless military occupation, and a permanent mid-Eastern setback for the U.S.A.
Mitt Romney, shape-shifting as usual, had first asked, “Who’s going to own Libya if we get rid of the government there,” now warns that it is imperative to extradite the Lockerbie bomber. If that doesn’t happen, wonder who he’ll blame? Rick Perry could only warn about how hard it will be for Libyans to form a government, while Michele Bachmann, opposed to any American role, hoped we’d soon be out altogether.
John McCain had called for American bombing of Gaddafi. Had we knocked the tyrant out a bit sooner (the war has lasted only six months), it would have stolen victory from the Libyans and left us with another impossible occupation. Now McCain, still saying it took too long, churlishly credits NATO. McCain’s heroism as a POW has taken him far, but as a U.S. senator he is out of his depth.
The USA flew only observation and support missions. On the day an American F-15 came down with mechanical failure, its crew bailed out to be welcomed by Libyans, and returned into American hands.
Winning without American boots on the ground is a form of leadership that’s been called “leading from behind,” also used by Bill Clinton in Kosovo. It takes tactical and strategic smarts, nerves of steel, and the character to ignore no-nothing armchair critics. Obama has it all, plus a steadfast restraint that brought triumph without one American soldier lost. As important, no occupation, and the Libyans, who fought and died, own the victory and have a powerful motive for re-building their nation.
Obama’s war, yes, absolutely.
Obama bashers who were calling the Libyan Revolution “Obama’s War,” have changed their tune now that it’s on the verge of being won. But instead of celebrating success, they act like they were hoping the U.S.A. would lose, so they could blame it on Obama. Their mean-spirited bleating exhibits the most contemptible characters outside of a Charles Dickens novel.
TV host, Lou Dobbs, described Obama as “desperate” for a foreign policy success. If desperation is what it takes, what a shame George Bush lacked it, just swaggered like a frat boy in a G-suit on a carrier deck under a “Mission Accomplished” banner. All he accomplished was a devastating loss of American lives, an endless military occupation, and a permanent mid-Eastern setback for the U.S.A.
Mitt Romney, shape-shifting as usual, had first asked, “Who’s going to own Libya if we get rid of the government there,” now warns that it is imperative to extradite the Lockerbie bomber. If that doesn’t happen, wonder who he’ll blame? Rick Perry could only warn about how hard it will be for Libyans to form a government, while Michele Bachmann, opposed to any American role, hoped we’d soon be out altogether.
John McCain had called for American bombing of Gaddafi. Had we knocked the tyrant out a bit sooner (the war has lasted only six months), it would have stolen victory from the Libyans and left us with another impossible occupation. Now McCain, still saying it took too long, churlishly credits NATO. McCain’s heroism as a POW has taken him far, but as a U.S. senator he is out of his depth.
The USA flew only observation and support missions. On the day an American F-15 came down with mechanical failure, its crew bailed out to be welcomed by Libyans, and returned into American hands.
Winning without American boots on the ground is a form of leadership that’s been called “leading from behind,” also used by Bill Clinton in Kosovo. It takes tactical and strategic smarts, nerves of steel, and the character to ignore no-nothing armchair critics. Obama has it all, plus a steadfast restraint that brought triumph without one American soldier lost. As important, no occupation, and the Libyans, who fought and died, own the victory and have a powerful motive for re-building their nation.
Obama’s war, yes, absolutely.
RSS Feed