By Steve Hynd
It's difficult to find analysts who think armed intervention in Libya would be a good idea, with even most warfare welfarists backing off from talk of invasion or hard-to-implement "no-fly" zones.
There are, however, some notable exceptions. Neoliberal Iraq cheerleader Michael O'Hanlon and neocon Iraq stovepiper Paul Wolfowitz have combined to argue that the US should be ready to take "action of a more forceful sort". Inveterate hawk Hillary Clinton has said that �nothing is off the table".
And the Pentagon is repositioning forces just in case:
Defense Department spokesman Col. Dave Lapan says Pentagon planners are working on various options and contingency plans as the violence aimed at overthrowing the government continues in the North African nation. Lapan told reporters Monday that as part of that planning, the Pentagon is repositioning some naval and air forces.
The U.S. has a regular military presence in the Mediterranean Sea and farther to the south has two aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf area.
Libyan tweeters keep saying they don't want American intervention, that they still remember Iraq, that they want to handle the situation themselves. But America is setting ready to intervene anyway. What is this, Animal House? "I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part" and we're just the guys to do it!
Update: McClatchie reports that an aircraft carrier is being moved to sit off Libya's coast and quotes an anonymous official as saying that consideration of imposing a no-fly zone �has picked up a little speed.�
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou might wish to look at Juan Cole's posting here for why the US may want to intervene militarily. Not that it wouldn't be stupid - but stupidity has hardly ever been a hindrance, has it.
Has John Bolton jumped on this, too? If not, he'll surely get around to it. For Bolton, rvery time is a good time to a foreign country.
ReplyDelete