Osomir
VIP Member
- Jun 4, 2013
- 2,830
- 164
How about no costs and no body count.The number one point here should be that following this faulty policy is too risky. But because it sounds warm and fuzzy....you folks won't change....because talking about is very impressive. Who cares if people are sacrificed. We did what the UN thinks is sound....and having worked with those walking calamities personally, if we keep putting people in the White house that subscribe to this insanity, we will continue to suffer the same fate. The worst thing about it is as long as we have a biased sycophantic media......Democrats will continue to pull this stupidity.And we agreed to that bullshit?It's cute how you need that to be a lie. It is a lessons learned process that has been building for some time. The UN even called a committee on it just before the start of the Iraq War (SC/7295) to look at efforts in Afghanistan. The results of it were the advocating of a smaller footprint style tactics which minimized international working staff and instead substituted them for national staff within the host country. It was also meant to steer us away from attempts at direct nation building efforts, which largely failed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The focus instead of invasion was modern COIN doctrines focused on special operations and use of intelligence agents coupled with air power.
Even the UNSCR mandate that the NTC agreed to stipulated a light footprint and forbade boots on the ground in conflict. The transitional Libyan government specifically wanted a light international presence on the ground.
Obviously politics is more important to this administration than taking care of their own people. If I was president I wouldn't establish a presence there unless my security requirements were achievable. Diplomacy takes a back seat to security.....or didn't the Iranian Hostage Crisis teach you a thing.
Absolutely. It was also what the Libyan government wanted; and so far it has turned out far better than Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite the loss of our ambassador, we have suffered FAR fewer casualties, and it has cost FAR less in monetary and political capital terms. It also means that the Libyans themselves (instead of us) get to own the revolution and transition.
So let me get this straight:
Lower body count
Lower financial cost
Better results
Lower political cost
Better relationship building
Truly multilateral
Far shorter in duration
But too risky? Especially in the face of the "risk" of Afghanistan and Iraq? Come on. You're just trying too hard now.
Is that too difficult for you to grasp?
Remember a simple rule of thumb when you're dealing with foreign governments. .....never leave everything up to them. If you can't protect your people yourself then don't attempt the mission.
Isolationism isn't a winning tactic in our era of globalization. It's cute how you keep dancing around the issue. The simple fact is that our involvement in Libya has been vastly more successful than many of our other modern interventions.
The fact that you need it to be an utter disaster is sad, and plain partisan.