President Obama is being pressed by some of his top national security aides to approve the use of American military power in Libya to open up another front against the Islamic State.
To be fair, the president actually opened the war in 2011. So this pressure is just to try winning the war rather than declaring it "responsibly ended" and going away.
(And the article's explanation that the president is wary of intervening in another strife-torn nation is kind of funny in light of the president's role in breaking the state apart.)
Before that war, I felt it was a European problem that they should handle.
Once we launched the war, I wanted to win quickly. But I did wonder about the big-brained post-war plan the Democrats had for Libya to put the Iraq War post-war plan to shame (which we had).
And now, I'd like to see France take responsibility for organizing this front, which threatens them while we try to use our forces in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Or will France really step up in any of those fronts to free up our forces for Libya? No?
Seriously, why is America struggling to form a coalition?
The Obama administration is struggling to find the right mix of military and diplomatic moves to stop the Islamic State in Libya, where the extremist group has taken advantage of the political chaos in the country to gain a foothold with worrying implications for the U.S. and Europe — particularly Italy, just 300 miles away.
Shouldn't France be struggling? Along with Italy?
In any case, I told you that President Obama had taken the lead in wars being waged simultaneously.
Perhaps he'll pad his lead by reopening the Libya War.
Clearly, we need another presidential outreach speech to the Islamic world explaining that Bush is no longer president, the way things have gone since 2009.
At some point, will the Left just conclude he likes to bomb brown people?
