Libya, Bah-Humbug

[monk222]

We’re lobbing missiles that go for about $750,000 a copy into a country for the entirety of which I would not trade the change behind my sofa cushions, inasmuch as Libya strikes me the very definition of a negative asset, one that we are in the process of taking custodianship over. (Why are we doing that, again? In order to give the Arab League a chance to break the land speed record for stabbing us in the back? Which took about three minutes.)
...

If the experience of the last ten years has taught us anything, it should be this: We can bomb our enemies into the Stone Age, but we cannot bomb them into the 21st century.

-- Kevin D. Williamson at National Review

I wouldn't put it quite so chauvinistically, but I do love the point about the limitations of bombing. Even smart bombs aren't that smart.

Comments

[miss-next.livejournal.com]

Well, yes. I saw the newspaper this morning and thought to myself, "Can someone just remind me why we're at war with Libya, again?"

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Obama said it is going to be days instead of weeks for us, and that should be interesting to watch. I'm not sure what the British commitment is. I think we're suppose to hand the mission off to someone, but we're not clear who that is now. It's crazy, especially since the rebels are a spawning ground for al-Qaida. There is no winning in the region.

Picking up the tab

[poovanna.livejournal.com]

Oh, you poor US taxpayers - another war to fund.
You just can't catch a break, can you?! :)

Re: Picking up the tab

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

We're going bankrupt! And our military has to be overstrained, while not being put to effective use. It can seem like madness.