SwiftVets.com

[jalexson]

Have the Allies decided who will be in charge of preserving order and providing government services between the time Muammar Qaddafi is overthrown and a new government can be established?

Democracies don't miraculously appear after the overthrow of tyrants. Working out differences about what type of government is desired takes time. Someone has to run the interim government until differences can be resolved like the U.S attempted to do in Iraq.

Iraq isn't the only country that has had trouble developing a democratic government to replace a tyrant. Examples from European history demonstrate that the difficulties of establishing democratic government to replace tyrants.

The overthrow of the French monarchy in the late 18th Century was followed by various governments until a new strongman named Napoleon was able to establish a stable government. He then decided to expand the size of his empire to include most of Europe into Russia.

The fall of the Russian monarchy late during World War I also eventually produced a tyrant with a desire for empire. An initial attempt at democracy failed and the country descended into chaos with the communist party led by Lenin eventually conquering the country. His successor Joseph Stalin used the situation after World War II to expand the country's boundaries into Eastern Europe.

The Allied attack on the Libyan military means it will not be available to reestablish order even if people would accept its leaders after their efforts to keep Qaddafi in office. The problems other governments in the area are having mean they cannot assist with reestablishing order in Libya. One or more of the Allies will have send in a caretaker force to run things.

Qaddafi has many loyal supporters, particularly among those who have benefited from his rule, who might use guerrilla tactics against the interim government as happened in Iraq. Al Qaeda will certainly be interested in attempting to take advantage of the situation and use terrorism to force the interim government out as happened in Iraq.

The lawlessness in Somalia demonstrates what can happen without a government capable of establishing order.


Libya is one war we would be better off "losing", that is if Obama and his allies will accept a failure to remove Quaddafi.
_________________
"That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoe making and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poor house."
-- Mark Twain

[jalexson]

Barack Obama who ran on a platform of ending his predecessor's wars has apparently decided he wants his own war. As candidate Obama, he felt Congress should have a role in such decisions. As President O'Bomber, he thinks he can ignore Congress.

Like his predecessors O'Bomber is starting out with a bombing campaign. He hasn't said whether he will send Marines back to the shores of Tripoli if the bombing campaign fails to cause a surrender. Bombing didn't produce a surrender in Vietnam and Iraq. Muammar Gaddafi doesn't seem any more likely to relinquish power because of a bombing campaign than Saddam Hussein was.

Barack O'Bomber claims he is acting because the Libyan government has attacked those protesting the government, but Libya isn't the only government to use violence to put down protests.

Syria has been accused of using violence against protesters. Will O'Bomber also attack Syria? It would be easy considering we already have troops in neighboring Iraq. They could be moved out of Iraq and into Syria.

Will O'Bomber attack Iran which reportedly has been putting down mass protests? He could use it as an excuse to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. Prior to the election O'Bomber said he considered Iran a "tiny country" even though it's the 17th most populous nation in the world with a population is 78% that of Nazi Germany, a country which conquered Europe. from the Atlantic's to near Moscow.

China has killed protesters before. Does that mean the U.S. should consider attacking China?

I'm worried that if Gaddafi does give in to the bombing campaign, O'Bomber and the other Western Imperialists will think they can do the same thing in any country with a form of government they disapprove of. That is if they are really motivated by Gaddafi's treatment of his subjects rather than his oil.

If NATO is really concerned about injustice, why didn't it intervene in Darfur?

If O'Bomber succeeds in destroying the Libyan military will he or the Europeans spend years reestablishing order setting up a new government? Or will they let it become a lawless country like Somalia"

The most disturbing aspect of O'Bomber's action is his failure to consult Congress like Lyndon Johnson did before bombing North Vietnam and George W. Bush did before bombing Saddam Hussein. Both of those presidents took the lead in getting the U.S. involved in a war. O'Bomber seems to be following the orders of the European governments who get their oil from Libya.

Regardless of whether or not Barack Obama was born in Hawaii or not, he was born a British subject because his father was a British subject. Unless he formally renounced that citizenship he may still be a British subject and may be following the orders of his Queen in determining how to respond to Libya.

Those who like to protest America involvement in foreign wars need to start protesting now instead of waiting until the Marines land in Tripoli.
_________________
"That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoe making and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poor house."
-- Mark Twain