They have a point there. But what can you expect. The Arab League has had a lot of turnover in the dugout lately; a lot of managers have been fired this spring by the Arab Street. No wonder the rest are skittish.
You hear this one a lot: If we go into Libya, what about Bahrain, Yemen, Syria, Saudi Arabia? We can't take a stand in Libya and do nothing in those other places, it's pure hypocrisy!
This is the most tedious, immoral argument of all. It's like saying we shouldn't splint a broken leg because we haven't cured cancer. We can't cure the world's ills, but we can help some people, some time. This is one of those times.
It's a bogus argument anyway, barely worth refuting. But I can do the job in eight words:
Doing everything is impossible; doing nothing is unacceptable.
You hear this one from all quarters: Our goal in this war is not clear. Are we there to enforce a humanitarian no-fly zone or to take out Gaddafi?
This is the only persuasive argument I've heard so far against our intervention. Maybe we can't say it out loud, maybe Obama and the other nations involved know what they have to do, but it can't be said in public.
That's okay. I understand the need for diplomacy and, for a delightful change, so does our president. I, however, am not a diplomat. And between you and me and the lamppost, this war won't be over until Colonel Gaddafi is hanging from it.
Because if we learned anything from Iraq it is this: Fighting a war of choice is a dreadful business. The only thing worse is fighting it twice.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
