Libya, Will Gaddafi prevail?

[glatt]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Not that we would want to bomb a country into Democracy or anything, but isn't that what everyone bitched about Bush in Iraq?

My complaint with Bush in Iraq was not his technique, it was that he chose Iraq at all. The US had no reason to go into Iraq. We have not benefited in any way, and it was clear from the very beginning that there was nothing to gain by going into Iraq. Bush had a hard-on for Iraq for reasons I have never understood. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq was not a threat to the US or its neighbors. Saddam was a brutal dictator who killed many of his own citizens, but that was not our problem. So my complaint with Bush had nothing to do with dropping bombs. In fact, if you are going to be foolish enough to invade a country for no reason, I strongly encourage you to bomb the shit out of it first to soften it up.

I voted for Obama and I mostly support him, but getting involved in Libya is similarly stupid. We really should have let France take care of it. We have nothing to gain.

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

Bush had a hard-on for Iraq for reasons I have never understood. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq was not a threat to the US or its neighbors.

The purpose of war is to take the conflict back to a negotiation table. In WWII, the conditions for the peace table were clearly defined before most hostilities started. Unconditional surrender.

During Desert Storm, the powers that be in Washington were supposed to be planning for the inevitable peace table. And planning for the peace. When Swartzkopf went to accept the Iraqi surrender, he asked politicians in Washington for those plans - the political settlement. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfovitz, Feith, Rove, etc had done nothing. Did no planning for the surrender or planning for the peace.

What resulted was directly traceable to those who did not do their job. Those people would go done in history as having protected Saddam. Making possible the 20,000 massacre in Basra. They were extremists more worried about their legacy. They screwed up big time.

Military attacks on Iraq had been ongoing long before 11 September. Using the no-fly zone as an excuse, fighter bombers were attacking military targets even up near Baghdad - well outside the no fly zone. Using any tiny reason to attack any military facilities. Removing Saddam was planned that much in advance. To change how history would record their first screw up during Desert Storm.

There were other lesser issues. But their legacy - their screw up - was a primary reason for Mission Accomplished.

Once Baghdad was taken, they assumed everything was fixed. But again, they did nothing to plan for the surrender or to plan for the peace. So a third war - a rebellion - erupted. How many times must one make the same mistake before they finally learn a lesson?

Their politics said, "America does not do nation building." So they kept making same mistakes rather than learn flaws in their rhetoric. Did no planning for the peace. Then invented more wars to fix their mistakes.

BTW, you see UG posting that same rhetoric about fixing the world with military adventures. Extremists understand everything in terms of brute force. Never even learn the purpose of war. To take a conflict back to the negotiation table. Plan for the peace which our extremists did not do in Desert Storm.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by glatt

My complaint with Bush in Iraq was not his technique, it was that he chose Iraq at all. The US had no reason to go into Iraq. We have not benefited in any way, and it was clear from the very beginning that there was nothing to gain by going into Iraq. Bush had a hard-on for Iraq for reasons I have never understood. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq was not a threat to the US or its neighbors. Saddam was a brutal dictator who killed many of his own citizens, but that was not our problem. So my complaint with Bush had nothing to do with dropping bombs. In fact, if you are going to be foolish enough to invade a country for no reason, I strongly encourage you to bomb the shit out of it first to soften it up.

I voted for Obama and I mostly support him, but getting involved in Libya is similarly stupid. We really should have let France take care of it. We have nothing to gain.

Agreed.