Skip to comments.Rumsfeld: If Gadhafi Stays, U.S. Reputation Damaged, American Enemies Emboldened
Posted on 03/27/2011 11:40:08 AM PDT by Nachum
click here to read article
The only reason he doesn't is because he knows they are really Terrorists who would waste no time attacking us with road bombs.
If we had taken action at any time in the last 25 years to get rid of the psycho tyrant and his closest conspirators it would have been righteous.
However, to have intervened in this civil war to "protect civilians" is folly never exceeded in the history of the nation.
Bad policy in every respect.
But, now we're stuck.
I also just read the Bush book and am part way through the Rummie book. Bush sort of paints things in pastels, Don’s a little more of a literal narrator. Both have proved enlightening.
Watched the entire interview. Gawd I miss Rumsfeld. So nice to hear the truth.
Obama screwed us because we don't even know who we're backing or what Libya will be once we're done.
Easily spoken by one who has no “skin in it”, (as all the other “exempts” as in Vampire-Care, “bank” bail-giveaway, QE, govt. raises, govt. “education” loans, and on and on). And how about North Korea Donald?
We sure as hell do have a choice. Get the hell out of that place and let the Fenchies do what they want. Screw Obama and the camel he rode in on.
Proceeding according to plan.
I agree with everything you have said. Madness is all around us. Everyone speaks of sending our troops into yet another danger zone as if it were all just another video game.
We have yet to understand why a ruler who was working with us against Al Queda suddenly became worthy of assassination. And “humanitarianism” is a joke of an answer.
I’m sure once we find out what is really going on, it will be too late.
People who get “whacked” by the Mafia usually get it because they know too much. I wonder..........?
Prestige damage?? more than electing a commie nincompoop President? and a Nitwit Sectary of state?
Yeap, and in this case we should not be there for ‘saving face’, but for a real agenda. I don’t like this one ...one bit.
It’s the height of stupidity to continue a war that aids our worst enemies in order to try to salvage a reputation that can’t be repaired under Obama.
Why can’t Rummy, Bolton and Chuck Norris go over there and kick the Shiite out of these idiots.
Or would sending all three be too much?
I am astounded by the series of conservatives from Rumsfeld to Bolton to Palin who are calling for Gaddafi's ouster with not a word about the Brotherhood.Palin too? (Link, please.)
I think you grossly oversimplify neocon thinking with your “Munich Syndrome”. It completely ignores the question of “why attack this dictator and not that one”.
I think that the neocons are grossly misguided in their view of the world and the need for the US to involve itself so deeply in so many places in the world, but I think their motives are much more complicated than your “Munic Syndrome”.
Nice try at a theory, but I don’t think it holds much water. Bush and Rumsfeld didn’t go into Iraq because they thought Saddam was on the march, Hitler-style. They went in because they thought they saw an opportunity to spread Western Democracy to a bunch of lunatic savages who were on the path to possessing nuclear weapons.
Again, I agree with you that their thinking was grossly misguided, but, again, I don’t think “Munich Syndrome” explains that thinking.
As for Obama, I would say “that’s a completely different kettle of fish” except for the fact that all the neocons are siding with him, which makes me think that whatever ideology the neocons ever had — whatever plan or worldview they ever had — is so flawed that it has devolved into agreement with one of the biggest blunderers in the history of human civilization.
F* Obama and F* the neocons who agree with his disastrous foreign policy.
Well, we both know that ain't going to happen. :(
I think that's fairly easy to figure out - it's a combination of strategic value (based on geography and natural resources) and the expectation of easy and cheap victory. Iraq was a target because they expected it to be a rerun of Grenada and Panama. Or the liberation of Kuwait and Iraqi Kurdistan.
They went in because they thought they saw an opportunity to spread Western Democracy to a bunch of lunatic savages who were on the path to possessing nuclear weapons.
They thought the only problem with Iraq was Saddam and his inner circle. Unfortunately, they were were wrong. The problem extended to tens of thousands of Iraqis (and hundreds of thousands who provided logistical support for them). We did not encounter that problem with either Japan or Germany because we killed millions of their troops and millions of their civilians. By war's end, we had killed everyone who wanted to fight and weren't afraid to get killed doing so. The effort came a cropper because instead of killing as many Iraqi troops as we could during the initial invasion, we let them surrender and come back as guerrilla leaders and trainers. Iraq is a tiny taste of what Japan and Germany would have been like if we had managed to compel a surrender and Allied occupation in the initial stages of WWII - all the fighting age alpha males were alive and spoiling for a fight. At the same time, we couldn't have slaughtered the Iraqi army en masse without getting lambasted by the press (in an echo of the Highway of Death). Besides, weren't we in Iraq as liberators?
Insoluble conundrums like this are why Iraq was a big mistake - we more or less had a blank check to pulverize Japan and Germany because of the tens of millions of civilians and soldiers their armies had slaughtered. What would have been our excuse for killing millions of Iraqis - the only way we could have attained the kind of submission obtained from Japan and Germany?
"Win it means Gaddafi goes" at: