Posted on 03/25/2011 9:22:48 PM PDT by JLS
It is tempting and certainly very easy to point out that Obama's war (or Obama's "kinetic military action," or "time-limited, scope-limited military action," or whatever the latest ever more preposterous evasion is) is at odds with everything candidate Obama said about U.S. military action before his election. And certainly every attempt the president makes to explain his Libyan adventure is either cringe-makingly stupid ("I'm accustomed to this contradiction of being both a commander-in-chief but also somebody who aspires to peace") or alarmingly revealing of a very peculiar worldview:
"That's why building this international coalition has been so important," he said the other day. "It is our military that is being volunteered by others to carry out missions that are important not only to us, but are important internationally."
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
Mark Steyn ping. [BTW discuss should be discusses in my first comment above.]
Freepmail me, if you want on or off the Mark Steyn ping lists.
Kinetic action wasn’t in 1984’s dictionary
http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-dict.html
Must have been an oversight.
Gadhafi was the thug who came in from the cold, the one who (in the wake of Saddam's fall) renounced his nuclear program and was supposedly rehabilitated in the chancelleries of the West. He was "a strong partner in the war on terrorism," according to U.S. diplomats.What changed during the past month? How is it in America’s interest to help Russian/Iranian/al Qaeda mercenaries posing as Libyan peasants?
A change in the weather is enough to renew the world and ourselves - Marcel Proust
Are Russians involved for certain? I can believe Iranians and al Qaeda — but Russia has been critical of this kinetic art. You say mercenaries; does that mean they'd be acting against Russian government wishes? Is that a dangerous thing for them to do? Does Q’Daffy have any Russian mercenaries? What a mess!
Interesting that this is the same Steyn article that was published in Investor’s Business Daily yesterday. Only the title has been changed.
It never hurts to have extra posts of Steyn commentary. This column is very serious and deserves serious consideration by as many readers as possible.
——If the object is to kill terrorists——
The object in Afghanistan is not to kill terrorists. Styn is introducing a red herring.
The objective in Afghanistan is to remove terrorists and deny them government sanctioned territory. Killing as many terrorists as possible is a secondary result of the main objective.
The mission is largely successful. History is a process, not an event. History takes time. To expect the game to be won and over in four carefully measured quarters is to show one’s ignorance of historical process.
Great article.
The message the US is sending - don’t give up your nukes. You will be ‘rewarded’ by US bombing at will.
Gadaffi made a deal of sorts with us; we broke it. Our word is garbage. An alliance (Egypt) with us is equally worthless.
Most of Steyn’s columns are published in two or three outlets. This one may also show up in the National Review. Title are written by headline writers not column authors, so it is not like he is changing the title to confuse people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.