“We should have never gotten involved in Libya in the first place. It was a poorly-thought-out decision to back the losing side of a civil war that could go on for years. Even if Gaddafi were killed tomorrow, we have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what kind of government could follow him. Could it be hostile to the United States? Yes. Could it be a pro-terrorist, radical Islamist theocracy? Sure. Could the nation split up into warring factions? Absolutely. Do we have the slightest idea how long we’ll be there or whether the United States will be better off without Gaddafi? No, we don’t.
It’s an ill-defined, endless mission that was a mistake from the get-go and if Obama can’t even be bothered to get the permission of Congress to continue the mission, then they shouldn’t bother to fund it.” — John Hawkins, June 1, 2011
On the one hand, I’m glad Gaddafi is dead. Sic semper tyrannis and all that — plus, he has American blood on his hands. So, the fact that he’s dead and went out like Mussolini doesn’t bother me at all. Congrats to the Libyan people for getting rid of him with NATO’s help.
On the other hand, getting involved militarily in Libya was — and still is — a mistake. We have no national interest there and it is ENTIRELY possible that we could be tangled up in that country for years trying to help them get straightened out. Worse yet, it’s also very possible that we may have replaced an evil dictator who had become hostile to terrorists because he was afraid of us with what may turn out to be an Islamist, pro-Al-Qaeda regime. We really still have no idea how that’s going to play out.
So, Obama should have given encouragement to the Libyan people, sent them aid, and given moral support to anyone else who wanted to get involved, but it was — and still is — a mistake to have American troops in Libya. Gaddafi’s death changes nothing on that front. — John Hawkins, October 21, 2011
The United States didn’t achieve any sort of “victory” in Libya. We replaced an organized evil dictator who was cooperating with us with a disorganized, probably evil group of radical Muslims who aren’t as willing or able to work with us.
As a practical matter, was it in the interests of the United States to get rid of Gaddafi?
The honest answer is “No.”
……Which is why, painful though it may be, I have to agree with vile, anti-American, anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan here…
In a statement at a townhall meeting Wednesday night, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan argued that the late U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens would still be alive and unharmed if Muammar Gaddafi were still alive.
Farrakhan said “Gaddafi had an ordered society. Ambassador Stevenson [sic] could go anywhere in Libya and he wouldn’t be harmed when Gaddafi was in power.” Farrakhan continued, “but when the enemy came then we became divided more-so than ever.”
The truth is that he’s right.
Christopher Stevens and the other three Americans who died in the attack on our embassy would be alive today if Gaddafi were still in charge. We’d also be getting more useful intel in the war on terror if Gaddafi were in charge. We wouldn’t be pouring billions into that pesthole of a country. We also wouldn’t have to worry about Al-Qaeda-friendly radicals taking over the country if Gaddafi were in charge.
I wish the Libyan people all the luck in the world — and they’re going to need it, but it’s time to admit that Obama’s Libyan adventure has been a debacle.