McObama's Navy
Posted on 06/14/2011 12:00:16 AM PDT by neverdem
Anyone old enough remembers the 60s sitcoms Gomer Pyle -USMC, F Troop, and McHale's Navy. A review of DVDs of those fine, funny shows of yore should be high on anyone's list who's been following NATO's misadventure in Libya. Incoming Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta may want to take a look-see. After watching a few episodes of each show, you'd swear Gomer Pyle is leading McHale's zanies and F Troop fumblers across Libya's desert sands in side-slapping futility -- all set to laugh track guffaws.
Okay, NATO doesn't have boots on the ground in Libya, so Gomer and his goofs aren't zigzagging across North Africa. NATO, you see, can't make up its collective mind to put boots on the ground. NATO can't make up its collective mind to dispatch Muammar Gaddafi, either. One day the irascible Muammar is on NATO's hit list, the next day he's off -- sort of. It's all high, humorous, and deadly incompetence, this game of whack-a-dictator that NATO is playing with Gaddafi.
Gaddafi pops his head up in some hamlet or village and NATO looses a barrage of missiles or drones or whatever's left in its dwindling munitions stockpile. Gaddafi escapes but some poor fellahin who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time get one-way tickets to paradise.
NATO's Libyan adventure is premised on a lie -- or, at least, a semi-lie. The lie is that NATO has intervened in Libya to protect innocents from Gaddafi's ghoulish depravity. NATO's leaders -- so-called -- might as well have declared that they're in Libya for the chil'ren's sake. "The chil'ren" is the all-purpose throwaway line that progressives use to justify any and every use or expansion of government, so why not use it to justify war?
The truth is that the Europeans who conceived the Libyan mess are a more cynical lot; they're using a humanitarian cover to protect vital Western European oil interests in the Middle East, but they're doing so poorly. You see, national self-interest is long out of vogue among progressives -- European and American. Oil is too practical and tawdry a concern. The West must be about upholding selfless ideals. Hence, the need for Florence Nightingale to ride into Libya on the back of a Tomahawk missile or in the cockpit of an F-16 Fighting Falcon.
Though NATO's dithering incompetence in the Libyan fight might make for a few laughs for us observers, it's far less humorous and more instructive to NATO's and America's enemies (Opps - competitors; we must be scrupulously PC).
The Chinese, Russians, and Iranians -- chief among the world's black hats -- are watching avidly as NATO stumbles and bumbles in Libya -- or never gets to Libya with troops in the first place, since the Great Libyan Humanitarian Intervention of 2011 is being run by committee (you know, committees, those wonderful collections of human beings tasked with designing elephants but concocting giraffes instead).
The military brass in China, Russia, and Iran must be licking their chops and taking copious notes. Once-mighty NATO can't make quick work of Gaddafi and his tiny semi-professional army. The United States -- the world's remaining superpower, for the time being, anyway -- and the NATO member capable of galvanizing resolve and leading the coalition to a swift victory in Libya is sitting on the sidelines -- kind of. The U.S. is helping out, but halfheartedly. President Barack Obama, a thoroughly Kool-Aid drinking progressive, says the U.S. is weary of being the world's leader; let NATO's Barney Fifes figure out how to shoot straight and beat the bad guys.
Let's not forget that the Brits and Americans have had tougher fights in North Africa. Generals Montgomery and Patton drove Rommel and the tough-as-nails Germans out of North Africa during World War II. Michael Jackson lookalike Muammar Gaddafi and his AK-47 wielding thugs are tougher than Rommel and his Panzer divisions?
No one is suggesting that Libya is America's fight. There is no discernible vital American interest at stake in the overthrow of Gaddafi and the establishment of a new government there. Yeah, Gaddafi is a bad guy; everyone remembers Lockerbie, and most everyone knows that Gaddafi has given a helping hand to terrorists (militants for Islam - PC again). But there are ways of exacting revenge for Gaddafi's deadly gambits (take the guy out surgically and covertly) without full-blown war.
Yet, you can bet your bottom ruble that Putin and his gangster-cohorts are gaming moves to make against a weak and wavering Western Europe in light of NATO's impotent Libyan performance. Empire is in every Russian's DNA; Putin is certainly no exception. And Russians have a very Asian sensibility; they'll wait for exploitable opportunities, even if that's years down the road.
The Chinese are aggressively building a blue water navy, and not to provide humanitarian relief in far-flung corners of the world, but to dominate the Asian Pacific region -- and, perhaps, one day, say, the Indian Ocean. Mr. Obama's shoulder shrugs and masked hostility to U.S. global leadership is on full display in the NATO-Libyan imbroglio. The Chinese aren't dopes.
Chinese Leader Hu Jintao and Generals Liang Guanglie and Chen Bingde must be wondering if Mr. Obama's "We are the World -- not Leaders" oath marks a permanent departure for the U.S. in global affairs, especially those involving military elements. A less assertive U.S. makes China's strategic and tactical moves -- backed up by a strong military and the will to use it -- much easier in the coming years.
And Iran? Despite the marvelous European and American team effort to shutdown Iran's nuclear weapons program, Iran's mullahs and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continue to intrepidly push ahead. The Iranians have already drawn a bead on Western impotence. The Libyan comedy starring NATO can only affirm that the Iranians need only finish making the bombs that they hope to kill Israelis with while cowing Europeans and Americans in the process.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are gambling men, and from their perspective, NATO's Libyan bog is a green light to keep rolling the dice. Can you say mushroom clouds over Tel Aviv? Tribute from Europeans and Americans?
Consequences. Not always a pleasant word in global affairs. Even with an eventual victory in Libya, NATO has already botched it. NATO's enemies have a predator's keen eye and instincts. NATO's Libyan pratfalls and tail-chasing have been fully registered in Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran. The consequences longer term can't be good -- and that goes for the U.S., too.
On Green Energy: Italy and the Eco-Mafia - The Mafia like ‘green jobs,’ but Italians shouldn’t.
Judiciary chairman: Al Qaeda threat no reason to change gun laws
Poll: Younger voters dissatisfied with Obama's handling of the economy
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Obama’s War.
He only needs NATO to keep up the pressure until the Obama Brotherhood gets strong enough to take over.
McObama's Navy
This war will not last long. Watch as a British team maybe SAS will take out Gaudaffi—the war will be over quickly. No nation building here—a new tyrant will rule and he will be the best tyrant European money can buy. They will not turn it over to The Moslem Brotherhood.—or if they do—they will make a deal with them. The French are good at that sort of thing. This is Hillary’s War from start to finish. Watch, enjoy the popcorn.
Expensive and deadly boondoggle. It should never have happened, and any tropers killed can have inscribed on their tombstones, ‘Here lie the remains of a fine, courageous, young man whose life was pissed away by a gaggle of ignorant, wretched, ambitious, vainglorious, old men.’
It was the cost for dragging half the world into our wars when we were too chickenskit to go to war on our own. France, Germany, the UK in Afghanistan? This is there payment.
Thanks for the ping!
Sarkozy seems to have been the person most eager to depose Kaddafi. I’m really not sure why. One theory is that he was afraid that Kaddafi would undermine France’s neo-Colonial aspirations in Chad, especially the uranium mines being developed there.
I think it’s extremely likely that France and the EU generally could have gotten a better oil deal from Kaddafi than from the terrorists itching to replace him. Maybe the terrorists have promised them more oil, but if so, they are suckers to believe it.
I suspect that England has joined in mostly to please Obama and to prove that they should be recognized once again as our closest ally. That’s silly, too, as long as Obama remains in office. He hates England, and nothing they do will change that.
In other words, this really is a stupid war for all concerned, except, as this article points out, for Russia and China, who will profit by seeing America weakened financially, and, as it also points out, by Obama’s habit of expending expensive missiles and weaponry with no intention of replacing them. The same thing Bill Clinton did in Yugoslavia, when he used up most of our missiles and ran down most of our military supplies, leaving it to Bush to replace them.
The UK gains by splitting up the Franco-German Axis of weasels and creating a new Anglo-French Alliance.
If so, that certainly complicates matters. But then why did Russia and China abstain from voting when the Security Council passed their Libyan motion? I assumed that showed that they WANTED us involved in a war with Libya, but also wanted to be able to criticize us for doing it.
We must bring and end to the usurper Obama regime and take our country back or he will make sure America loses ALL of the wars we are fighting!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.