What to say about our latest foray into Araby? My impression was that this would be the test to determine Obama's status as either a cautious statesman or an out of his depth amateur. Now we know. The candidate of change just recapitulated the single dumbest act of his predecessor.
These are the early hours of our involvement but the following questions beg to be asked.
What is the point of attacking Qaddafi's regime while claiming no interest in toppling him?
If we are bombing to save civilians (who are in revolt at our encouragement), what plans have we for the outcome the revolt? Or is it our wish that neither Qaddafi nor the rebels succeed?
The President says that Libya's future must be determined by "The Libyan people." Isn't it a bit incoherent to dictate terms to Qaddafi as though we are the Libyan people. Who decides who "The real Libyan people are? We do apparently. If the country spins off into tribal warfare, who then are "The Libyan People" Only Hillary Clinton will get to say for sure.
What do we know about the likely rebel government if one is to emerge? We know that Qaddafi is a dangerous buffoon who can be intimidated. If the rebels compose a disciplined antagonistic regime, would we be better or worse off? ."
Clearly the British and French have more at stake than we do. But are their interests the same as ours?
So we will see what happens. But it is obvious that our defective president has allowed himself to be drawn into a conflict in which he cannot spell out our national interest and has no seriously plan.