Do you remember a few months ago when Col  Gadhafi threatened to slaughter his own people.   Two factions developed in the United States.  One faction, the hawks, said the U.S. should go in on the ground with all guns blazing.  The other faction urged Obama to stay out altogether.  obama did neither.  Instead he carefully fashioned a group of countries to take on Gadhafi.   The United States would participate with air power but would not lead  and  there would be no U.S. boots on the ground.  The prupose of the coalition Obama crafted was to protect Lybians from slaughter and  to get rid of Gahdhafi.

In a matter of weeks both objectives have been attained.  And not a single American soldier lost his or her life.

In fact so successfull is the template usedin Lybia so successfully, it might well be used in other areas of conflict.  with his use of drones and limited airpower obama has created a fighting machine that is appropriate for regional skirmishes and wars.

obama is quietly establishing a militaryand foreign policy that amawill lead the way for the future.

Was Gadhafi  a  win for Obama?

What do you think?


  1. 1
    Tony Kondaks Says:

    Sugarcoat it all you want, Neil.

    Bottomline: Obama’s bombs killed many innocent women and children.

    This guy is on a high from the spike in approval ratings he got from the Bin Laden assassination. Now, he can’t stop: even U.S. citizens aren’t exempt.

    Team America, World Police.

  2. 2

    When we/they get involved in other countries, it’s a no-win situation in the media and the court of public opinion. Yes, many innocent people died. Many innocents had been dying under a repressive regime.
    One of our shames, in Canada, was turning away Jewish refugees. We didn’t want to “get involved”.
    I just listened to Romeo Leblanc discussing Rwanda. Over 800,000 (!) people were slaughtered in that genetic cleansing. It could have been avoided or lessened if the UN had reacted, if the US had “interfered “.
    I think the US involvement in Libya was exactly the right thing to do. These oppressed countries in the world have to learn that they can master their own destiny. If enough people come out against their government, it will fall-But they need to do it themselves-it means more. We can help, by getting on the right side. Next is Syria, China, Cuba…too many despots.

  3. 3
    Tony Kondaks Says:


    Why then the opposition to invading Iraq and removing Saddam? Notwithstanding the non-existance of weapons of mass-destruction, surely Saddam’s brutality against his own people far surpassed Ghadafi’s treatment of his. There seems to be a double standard at work here (not you necessarily but many, particularly Obama supporters and, indeed, Obama himself).

  4. 4

    Thanks Tony, for not questioning my double standards. 🙂 I have plenty, as I am faced with so many complexities and information, in present day society. I did not support the Gulf war, and thanks to Jean Chretien who kept us out of that one, but I believed that there were weapons there. DUH.
    Finally, I can’t debate the evils of Saddam over Gadhafi over Bin Laden, I can only say that the world is a better place without them.
    I like Obama. I am disappointed with his performance, or let’s say, the results. Having said that, I’m disappointed with Jean Charest as well, but I can acknowledge the ‘ball of wax’ they inherited and faced. At this time I can’t see one single replacement candidate in either case. Here Legault…maybe.
    In the USA, race I tend to agree with more Democrats than Republicans (especially after the Bush fiasco). I know that’s a broad stroke.
    There seems to be something inherently wrong with all of them…i.e: Bill Clinton, John Edwards, John McCain, Kerry, and “what’s her name”…

  5. 5

    This result beats the Somali intervention, now called Black Hawk Down,where the Americans lost those soldiers. They learned there that any military adventure has to be fully backed up,with a major force nearby. That was also why they didn`t go into Afghanistan untill the army was willing,and they had a real reason.

    This affair worked because there was popular movement -a rebellion-that could be supported,either by the U.S. or NATO. Obama could use minimal force , and let the locals do their best.

    Would drones work in a dense urban setting,with no clear boundaries,orclear uniforms.? It was revealed a few weeks ago that the air force strikes were called down by a Libyan journalist , at huge risk to herself. The human factor is still there, and will be for quite a while

  6. 6

    So, Tony…how would YOU have handled the situation, had you been giving the orders instead of Obama?

    C’mon…stick your neck out a bit and take a virtual stand… ;D

  7. 7
    Tony Kondaks Says:

    What “orders”, Lady J? Obama is president, he doesn’t take orders from anyone.

    What are you referring to?

  8. 8
    Tony Kondaks Says:

    Here’s an interesting take from Donald Trump:

  9. 9
    Neil McKenty Says:

    Tony, I can’t upload the Trump referenence but it’s hard for me to think he made much sense.

    litlepatti –

    In your first comment I think you meant Romeo Dallaire.

  10. 10

    The Donald holding forth on foreign policy…. You know, if anybody doubted the true greatness of America, they have to look no further than seeing how this bufoon realised that he wasn`t up to the job of being president.

    Billion dollar bank account,ten cent ideas.

  11. 11

    Thanks Neil. Of course you are right. Who the heck is Romeo Leblanc and how did his name get in my head?

  12. 12

    Romeo Leblanc was fisheries minister under Trudeau

  13. 13
    Neil McKenty Says:

    He was also Governor-General olf Canada and his son will be a candidate for the Liberal leadership.

  14. 14

    Tony, do you ever pay attention to what I say?

    What made you think I said Obama was “taking” orders?

  15. 15
    Tony Kondaks Says:

    Sorry, Lady J, I must be losing it.

    I have no clue how I read “taking” instead of “giving”.

    To answer your question: I would not have gotten involved in the first place.

  16. 16
    youngshoutman Says:

    A WIN for Obama? Surely you mean David Cameron and Nikolas Sarkozi?!!
    because while members of the EU and North America were sitting on there arses worrying about their oil supplies, both Britain And France had already started the bombing campaign, significantly aiding the rebels cause and preventing the iminent slaughter of civilians in Benghazi.

  17. 17

    “To answer your question: I would not have gotten involved in the first place.”

    So, you would have allowed Gadhafi to go on slaughtering his own citizens for daring to want what America has — the right to free speech and free association?

  18. 18

    Lady J asks me:

    So, you would have allowed Gadhafi to go on slaughtering his own citizens for daring to want what America has — the right to free speech and free association?


    The United States simply cannot afford — from either a financial or moral position — to continually enter into these conflicts throughout the world. It is none of our business.

    Particularly since there is no guarantee that what will replace the old regime will be any better. Sometimes it will be worse…much, much worse. Jimmy Carter did all he could to topple the Shah’s regime in Iran back in the ’70s; and for all the Shah’s faults, I think we can agree that it was 10 times better than what is there now.

    We now hear that the new Libyan regime is planning to institute a radical, fundamental version of Sharia law.

RSS Feed for this entry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: