Smart Power: Gaddafi Still Winning Despite NATO Presence

Rate this post

In today’s edition of The Best News Ever, we learn that NATO forces in Libya seem to be dawdling around ineffectively.
The Wall Street Journal has the scoop:

“There’s something strange about the way he attacked us today,” said Abdullah Abdel-Jalil, a 31-year-old ambulance driver told the AP. “The Grad rockets, the tanks, the quantity of it all, he’s stronger than we thought. It’s way too intense.”

Explosions were heard after planes of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization flew over the zone where the heaviest fighting was under way, the AP reported. Whatever air support NATO provided, however, didn’t appear to turn the situation at all to the rebels’ advantage.

Something about this smells strange to me as well. How does NATO not know the extent of Gaddafi’s power by now? And if this rebellion is as populist as the media claim, where is Gaddafi getting enough soldiers to wage total war, and how does he have enough resources to continue dumping ammunition?
There are three possibilities:
1)      Despite all evidence from Tunisia, Egypt, and Iraq, Gaddafi supporters are delusional enough to defy NATO’s force.
2)      Someone told Gaddafi he’s not really leaving.
3)      Gaddafi has reason to believe NATO will chicken out.
Meanwhile, Britain and America continue to kick around ideas of either arming the rebels directly or allowing them to sell oil for their own profit. But if Gaddafi resumes control over the oil rigs because NATO can’t stop him – at least one of those ideas is out the window.
That leaves the plan to give arms to the rebels. But then there’s a tiny little sticking point about Al Qaeda operatives allegedly leaving Iraq to join the more interesting war zone in Libya.
No one seems to be discussing why Al Qaeda thinks it a wise use of money/personnel to help fight Gaddafi, especially with NATO presumably there to dispose of him already. Either Al Qaeda is expecting to influence the new government, or it suspects that free weapons are coming. Rest easy tonight knowing that Hillary Clinton is in charge of the outcome.
Stuff like this is exactly why we criticized Obama and Clinton for not having a metrics-driven plan. People can discuss whether the intervention was needed, but now that we are there, everyone agrees there should have been an actual strategy. Because this right here is some embarrassing leadership.

Please follow and like us:

0 responses to “Smart Power: Gaddafi Still Winning Despite NATO Presence

  1. Lots of questions.
    Certainly we cannot ignore the “Arab Spring” but for the purposes of this discussion, let’s assume that it’s only role in the Libya situation is one of inspiration. So here’s what I want to know:
    1. I know Qaddafi is a thug. I know he has a history of strong-arming his people. Was that going on at large during the last year? I don’t remember hearing about it if it was. (Actually, that’s true for Egypt, Bahrain, et. al. as well.) If it was, why did we not intervene then? Not with military force, but certainly if there were massive human rights violations being committed in Libya, some sort of pressure could have been levied. And we would have known about it. If it wasn’t happening, then it seems the great humanitarian disaster that we had to avert was the result of Libyan citizens rising up to overthrow their leader by force. I’m not so sure that a military response by Qaddafi wasn’t -if not entirely appropriate, then certainly expected.
    2. Surely Qaddafi has retreated underground. With today’s news that Obama ’08-the-pacifist has signed Qaddafi’s death warrant in the not-a-war, you’d have to expect that Muammar is smart enough to hide. So what happens if we don’t get him? It looks like air power alone won’t allow a rag-tag group of untrained, undisciplined, lightly armed and tactically over-matched tribes to maintain any sort of territorial advantage over Muammar’s paid army (Imagine that… /s) If Qaddafi turns up dead after weeks of battlefield victories, the world will know that the CIA took him out. I don’t expect that’ll play out well on the world stage. Or, if we don’t get him, we look weak and ineffectual; both as NATO and as the U.S.
    3. If he goes, then what? How do we effect a peaceful regime change without a peace-keeping force on the ground. Blue helmets or not, Christian occupiers in Libya will not look good.
    So, essentially, I can’t see any sort of win for U.S. foreign policy as a result of this action. This has all the makings of a protracted civil war, and possibly one that could last into at least the primary season. I surely can’t fathom how Team Obama thought this was a smart move- unless of course, they actually believed they could force Qaddafi to leave “in days, not weeks”

  2. Know what would be funny?
    Of all the brush fires that have recently sprung up in the region, Libya turns out to be the one place the true-believers are unable to install one of their own in the seat of power, despite Obama intervening on their behalf militarily.
    I will be ROFLMAO if that happens.

  3. I don’t agree that the US can pick and choose where to spread “democracies” using military force and lives without the People’s condolences nor approval.
    Perhaps we should just super socialize the country and become like Sweden or Norway and just mind our own business like they do. Our country used to walk softly and carry a big stick. Now it touts itself the world’s police with nothing but a bullhorn and tomahawk missiles.
    Instead of Proud to be an American… Our new national slogan will be “Proud (cough) to be a United Nations Citizen of the World,” with one arm reaching to the sky at a 45 degree angle pointing to a puppet proclaiming to be the President of the World.
    I’m chomping at the bit… How soon can I get my United Nations ID card where not even a birth certificate is needed or even required to obtain one?

  4. I’d go for number 3. It’s another war the west is going to get bogged down in wasting valuable resources which will be needed when the entire Arab world ignites. The philosophy behind this is: Let the West fight for us in the name of false “Democracy”. Soon you will see the Russkies and the other Red Guys getting invloved. And remember ” when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies”, Saint Mark, words of Jesus. The time to put your heads between your legs will be here. The USA should pull out of this venture and get back home because the defence of your homeland will be paramount! You must look after your own people first. As soon as democracy is brought about you’ll see the Ayatollahs appearing! Has the West learned any lessons. Let the ragheads sort out their own problems!

  5. Winning! (Like Charlie Sheen.) In fact, in homage to a recently UK Guardian article on whether Sheen or Khadaffi said it… a brief YouTube game on the subject:


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *