I know it is not politically correct to advocate assassination of foreign heads of state, but wouldn’t that solve our problem in Libya? Rather than sending in our army to fight his army, why don’t we just send in a black ops team to pick off Gadaffi and his sons? They wouldn’t even have to be American assets. There are probably other countries capable of carrying out this mission. We might also get the wordsmiths working on the language that describes the action in more socially acceptable language.
Since we have already acknowledged that attacking Libya for “humanitarian” reasons is not consistent with either American or internationally accepted standards, what’s the difference? We are making up rules as we go anyway. As long as the conspiracy includes all the major players that might criticize us later, just send in a team and wait for him to surface.
The President and some of his leadership team continue to say that Gadaffi must go. The military leaders have confirmed again and again that removing Gadaffi is not their mission. We need to re-task them to the mission the President talks about in public.
Would there be collateral damage if there was an attack? Most certainly! Are there innocents being killed by Libyan forces as they defend and by rebel forces as they attack? Again, most certainly. If this was the first time in history where innocents were sacrificed for the greater good it would be a dilemma; but we all know that’s not the case.
When we weigh the cost of war in human lives, it’s always a tragedy. Our decision to not intervene for weeks cost lives. Were those lives any more or less valuable than some that might be lost if we attack a compound populated with human shields?
If thousands more Libyans are killed and the ultimate outcome is not killing or capturing Gadaffi, how will we rationalize that screw-up?
Either we mount an all out assault and win militarily or we let the black ops guys do it.
If the government fighters are paid mercenaries they will stop fighting when the paychecks stop. For the rest of the Libyan Army, I would assume they care for their country and will serve new leadership.
To what degree we are working to develop alternative leadership remains secret as it should for now. I am just hoping we are working on it.
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 9:47 am in Federal Government, Foreign Affairs, Political commentary | RSS feed
|
Reply |
Trackback URL
No Loss for Words
“Gadaffi Must Go!” says Barack Obama
by Steve DanaI know it is not politically correct to advocate assassination of foreign heads of state, but wouldn’t that solve our problem in Libya? Rather than sending in our army to fight his army, why don’t we just send in a black ops team to pick off Gadaffi and his sons? They wouldn’t even have to be American assets. There are probably other countries capable of carrying out this mission. We might also get the wordsmiths working on the language that describes the action in more socially acceptable language.
Since we have already acknowledged that attacking Libya for “humanitarian” reasons is not consistent with either American or internationally accepted standards, what’s the difference? We are making up rules as we go anyway. As long as the conspiracy includes all the major players that might criticize us later, just send in a team and wait for him to surface.
The President and some of his leadership team continue to say that Gadaffi must go. The military leaders have confirmed again and again that removing Gadaffi is not their mission. We need to re-task them to the mission the President talks about in public.
Would there be collateral damage if there was an attack? Most certainly! Are there innocents being killed by Libyan forces as they defend and by rebel forces as they attack? Again, most certainly. If this was the first time in history where innocents were sacrificed for the greater good it would be a dilemma; but we all know that’s not the case.
When we weigh the cost of war in human lives, it’s always a tragedy. Our decision to not intervene for weeks cost lives. Were those lives any more or less valuable than some that might be lost if we attack a compound populated with human shields?
If thousands more Libyans are killed and the ultimate outcome is not killing or capturing Gadaffi, how will we rationalize that screw-up?
Either we mount an all out assault and win militarily or we let the black ops guys do it.
If the government fighters are paid mercenaries they will stop fighting when the paychecks stop. For the rest of the Libyan Army, I would assume they care for their country and will serve new leadership.
To what degree we are working to develop alternative leadership remains secret as it should for now. I am just hoping we are working on it.
Rate this:
Share this:
Related
Posted on March 28, 2011 at 9:47 am in Federal Government, Foreign Affairs, Political commentary | RSS feed | Reply | Trackback URL