Why we should stay out of Libya

Creation of a no-fly zone is not the easy solution that saber-rattling right-wingers seem to think it is. The first step in creating a no-fly zone is to destroy all radar and missile sites and airfields. That's an act of war that requires a substantial commitment of US forces at a time when we are already involved in two wars we can't pay for or staff now. Our military is also exhausted and their equipment is worn out.

And what happens when the no-fly zone doesn't stop Gaddafi from destroying the rebels, which he is in the process of doing right now with mostly ground forces? Once we've made a military committment, do we just walk away when that doesn't work, as it surely won't, or do we then send in the Marines?

And why do right-wingers seem to think it is our responsibility to insure Gaddafi's defeat? He is no threat to us and we are not the world's policemen. If the Europeans want to take him on let them do all the heavy lifting for a change. They've been getting a free ride on the backs of our military long enough. They are the primary beneficiaries of Libyan oil anyway, not the US.

It would be very unfortunate if Gaddafi manages to crush the rebels, but as a practical matter it's no skin off our nose. Would a responsible Republican President be called a coward by right-wingers if he made the tough call to stay out of the Libyan situation after facing up to the realities of the situation rather than reacting to the childish taunting of chicken hawks? These chicken hawks are always calling for military intervention even though few of them have ever even served in the military themselves. If it were up to many right-wingers we'd be at war in several other places by now. Hey, why stop at Libya? Let's go kick some ass in Iran, North Korea, and a few places in Africa while we're at it.

Another blog post by Ken Padgett
Ken Padgett on Facebook