They’re pretty limited, really.
I don’t really care who wins, as long as Colonel Whathisname loses. I think that attempting to influence the outcome of events beyond that are far too problematic, with poor prospects for success, and large prospects for quagmire.
But we need to remove this carbuncle from the backside of humanity once and for all, after more than four decades of his insanity and warmaking, particularly now that the president foolishly told him that his time was up, and that his behavior was “unacceptable.” To leave him in power after that pusillanimous action, with no plan to actually make it happen, would weaken us tremendously, in both the Arab world and the globe at large.
He needs to be reminded that actions have consequences — something that he seemed to have forgotten in the transition from Bush to Obama — and if he doesn’t live long enough to learn the lesson, then his successor(s) needs to know it. If we are to rid the world of tyranny, we have to get the proper incentives in place, and one of those lessons should be, if you want to enjoy a comfortable retirement, you don’t slaughter your own people when your rule is challenged.
[Update later morning]
Stephen Green: We seem to have gotten into this war without a strategy. Do we even have an objective?
To paraphrase the great Canadian philosopher Wayne Gretzky, it’s never a bad play to drop bombs on Islamic fascists.
If that’s what you’d like to see, I expect you’ll be disappointed. I imagine that all this will do is to turn him into another Saddam Hussein: there will be some unified opposition to him for a while and enforcement of no-fly zones, but he’ll retain power, and he’ll start violating UN resolutions, and there will be no will to do anything more about it. So instead of being seen as someone who bombs his own people, he’ll start to be seen as a victim of economic sanctions and whatnot, and the forces unified against him will start to splinter and fall away, and no one will have the will or the courage to do any more than drop the occasional bomb someplace on Libya (which will most decidedly not harm him).
If we do nothing then ‘Colonel Whathisname’ learns that our words no longer have any meaning and that we no longer have the will to use force. If we do ‘something’ and it is ineffectual, he learns that we are no longer a real threat. If we remove him from the scene then, even if we leave the rebellion to follow its own course, everyone knows then that we do have the means and the will. That is beginning of deterrence.
there will be some unified opposition to him for a while…
And then the next thing you know, France will be arguing for sanctions to be lifted so they can start selling weapons to the Colonel, just like the tried to do in the late 1990s with Saddam.
“Do we even have an objective?”
Convince China we aren’t a Paper Tiger. Somehow.
I’m not sure I fully agree. We also need to think about long-term incentives. If we consistently do this, then the long-term incentive structure we set up is that if you want to change your government, the best way to do so is to get the United States to intervene militarily. I don’t like that as a general world policy for political change. I would prefer a greater degree of self-reliance among would-be rebels, and a feeling that although the United States will offer moral support to “freedom fighters,” and its citizens may privately offer them financial support, and you never know what the CIA might be up to, the United States as a nation will only intervene militarily where its national interests or citizens are directly threatened.
I realize that may seem a little cruel, in a sense, leaving rebels with whom we may all be in great sympathy to be slaughtered like Pigs at the Bay of, when they can’t raise the rest of their countrymen. But to do otherwise is perhaps to start down the same mistaken path that the fetishizers of government “help” have done domestically. We look at domestic tragedies — unemployment, wife-beating, child abuse, shoddy products and deceitful advertising — and think oh dear deserving people are sad, and we have all this government power. Didn’t Uncle Ben say with great power comes great responsibility? Government must act!
And away we go. The argument against such massive central interference, even in a noble cause, is that the central power cannot reliably determine the best way to apply that awesome power, and it is, also, a tremendous temptation to corruption and influence-mongering. But is that not equally true in foreign policy? How certain are we that the fools in the Obama State Department are going to correctly pick who should win a civil war? Is there no chance that the habit of using US military force to support noble causes won’t lead to corrupt bargains and influence-peddling?
I agree it’s a tough question. I had similar qualms about the Iraq War once it moved from smashing Hussein’s regime (which directly threatened our national interests) to Bush “compassionate conservative” nation-building. I’m not saying this is the wrong decision per se — maybe in this case it’s so obviously a good samaritan case it means nothing for the future. But I do worry about the precedent, in a general way. I am not fond of the idea of reprising Great Britain’s 19th century role.
Carl has a good point.
The problem in this particular case is that Obama is too stupid to understand what it means when the leader of the most powerful nation in the world says, in public, that the continued rule of Daffy is “unacceptable”.
The fact is that we cannot and will not intervene every time there is is a noble, good samaritan case. Witness Rwanda and Darfur.
Whether we do or not is shaped by the National Interest. What THAT means is that some oppressed people are going to be miffed when we do not help them. And it means somebody will be miffed when we do.
Anyone who thinks he or she might want to be President had better understand that and be willing to take the lumps.
Because lumps there surely will be.
People will start asking when we will put a no fly zone over Bahrain, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia.
wodun Says:
“People will start asking when we will put a no fly zone over Bahrain, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia.”
Maybe. And if they do the President is supposed to have a well thought out answer (not holding my breath). And sometimes that answer is going to be: “We’re not.”
And there will be great hue and cry. Life’s tough.
Obama made the the speech and triangulated the issue. Mission accomplished.
And no strategy or goals? That’s how the interesting wars start.
I sure wish we had some damned adults in charge. Khadafy is a problem we can deal with. Trim his sideburns with a jdam and he’s a pussy cat. We have no strategic interest in starting another war. We did have a strategic interest in helping the people opposing Khadafy and should have with the CIA but it should have been decisive and early. Instead where going to get involved in another wasted mess.
we’re… strange how my fingers work phonetically?
I respect Carl’s post. It’s a fair consideration of things.
I would start there but then lean in the direction of intervention. There are degrees of intervention of course. Moral support is the least that we can do. But just ask the Shiites, Cubans, Burmese, Bahrainians, etc how much just moral support is worth — not much — indeed, it is insufficient.
Moving up the scale is what I would recommend. Allowing US citizens to financially support rebels or (better yet in my opinion) rapid US arming of rebels. The claim will be made that the rebels are our puppets. But they will be the o es risking their lives, and at the end of the day it won’t matter because facts will have changed on the ground (e.g. few call Iraq’s government a US puppet).
Then there’s direct military intervention which can be very effective in taking down a government, but occupation of a Muslim country could be problematic. I would reserve this for situations where there is no other option (e.g. North Korea only). I believe that all other countries could be solved via strong arms support of rebels.
There aren’t too many remaining really bad countries that need intervention. I count four — NK, Iran, Burma, and Zimbabwe. I would give the others time to either change or sprout their own revolutions. China is just too risky a problem to try and solve and in the long run, they have been changing in the right direction.
If we adopt the Carl Pham doctrine, then we have to say it explicitly, to explain our seeming sudden indeference. We would have to stop giving financial support to foreign governments and we would have to stop preventing private aid to foreign rebals. We would have to stop entangling ourselves in foreign alliances. But we gave up that ‘strict neutrality’ some time during the French Revolution; trying to live by it still did not keep us out of a war with Great Britain. As to the role of Great Britain in the 19th century, they ended the slave trade and created the foundations of international trade and travel for everyone, almost a universal citizenship. That’s not a bad heritage to which to aspire.
People will start asking when we will put a no fly zone over Bahrain, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia.
I notice these sorts of questions tend to be insincere equivocations. None of those rulers have done evils comparable with a misfit like Gaddafi (while some here probably disagree on the Saudi’s promotion of Wahhabism internationally, I don’t see it as a great evil) nor currently are. Recall that Gaddafi has shelled numerous towns in the past few weeks and jets have been frequently used to attack rebel positions.
Also, in the case of Saudi Arabia, the current ruler was an instrumental player in the successful conclusion of the Cold War.
ken anthony Says:
” Instead where going to get involved in another wasted mess.”
You don’t know that. One perfectly reasonable strategy would be to establish the NFZ and NDZ, get every weapon possible into the rebel stronghold, and keep feeding them. Then back off the NFZ/NDZ. Let the rebels sink or swim.
Just exactly what we did with the Afghanis when they were fighting the Russians (without the NFZ/NDZ) and it worked just fine. Follow-up matters though (as we learned in Afghanistan).
Were we feeding them sooner, we wouldn’t need the NFZ/NDZ.
Obama has demanded that Daffy leave 3 towns – two of them near Tripoli. And he said this was non-negotiable.
Well ok. Let’s see if he’s learned something.
As an aside, what I’m really enjoying is there’s no mention of “soft power” or “smart power” from many of our our European friends. Germany abstained and doesn’t want to participate in military action, though they may take up other NATO slack.
In too many places we’re suckered into the “French Revolution” model of fixing things. That is, just keep killing leadership and propping new assholes up until the new assholes don’t revolt you quite so much.
A large part of “why” is that they often don’t have the historical framework that “The West” does. Trying to impose voting as a top-down reform in places where any vestige of democracy has been strictly pro forma in the past is quite difficult. Particularly if you’re trying to codify and enact the rest of the First Amendment at the same time.
The Second Amendment is a lot easier to explain. Particularly if you “just” distribute food & Dillingers to everyone you see that seems oppressed. By artillery if necessary.
Stop equipping and training potential bandits and start making it dangerous to be a bandit, be a slaver, start a stoning, or cane people in the streets.
You don’t know that
That’s true, but I can wonder. At times I’m of the mood we saturate bomb the entire planet with packages of guns, ammo and fruit bars.
When a boxcutter can result in a major attack on our country there is no country we can safely ignore. We should be actively involved in all of them (only a couple of hundred after all) to be less often surprised and better prepared for quick decisive actions.
I don’t really care what forms of government people choose or have imposed upon them. People have a responsibility within their limited powers to change or leave any situation that is oppressive.
Our obligation and responsibility is to our own people, which sometimes means active involvement in the affairs of other countries. Khadafy is a known danger to others including us. We should have been actively, but deniably, involved in taking him out from day one and every day until that occurred. The fact that it helps his own people is gravy. The fact that by supporting them, our own goals can be realized, just means we shouldn’t hesitate.
Publicly declaring an obligation should only be done in rare and clear cases. Declaring our position without obligation should be done prudently and with a clear objective. This is a game with high stakes, even existential at some point.
By committing ourselves to one obligation after another we put ourselves in danger of over committing ourselves which could lead to a slow motion collapse into our last war.
Using the CIA doesn’t commit us but should move us forward with our national objectives (to defend the interests of our own people.) We are not the worlds cops or even moral superiors but that is not an excuse for inaction.
Someone convinced the President that a Benghazi bloodbath would make for bad TV. Followed by one million Libyan refugees flooding American Cities resulting in another case of American Mariel angst.
As to the problem of replacing one regime with a worse one? We can’t know… we just have to keep dancing.
Karl Hallowell Says:
“I notice these sorts of questions tend to be insincere equivocations. None of those rulers have done evils comparable with a misfit like Gaddafi”
Maybe a little insincere because I don’t think we need to do a no fly zone over those countries. But I raised the issue because people will rightly ask why overlook the dirty deeds of some countries and not others.
Maybe the right answer is simply because they have been good allies to us over time while Libya has not but don’t tell that to Mubarak.
I don’t think we should throw Saudi Arabia or Bahrain under the bus but let’s be honest about the type of governments we have as allies in the ME. They may not be as bad as Moomar but they are hardly shining examples of civilization.
In the case of Yemen, you might not be aware of what has been going on there. The strife in Yemen predates the revolution in Tunisia. There have even been reports that Yemen used nerve toxin among other more common ways to kill their civilians. The jawas have been following Yemen for a long time.
But just ask the Shiites, Cubans, Burmese, Bahrainians, etc how much just moral support is worth — not much — indeed, it is insufficient.
I don’t think it’s quite that simple, JH. Or I could add: just ask the Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, and Hungarians. Or the Chileans, perhaps. Natan Sharansky has written of the very powerful don’t give up heartening effect US moral support, particularly by Reagan, had on Soviet dissidents. I’ve also heard people say similar things about the “velvet revolutions” that changed South America from mostly dictatorships to mostly republics in the 80s and 90s. Don’t underestimate the value of the City on the Hill. There’s a good reason thugs suppress the VoA and China censors Google.
China is just too risky a problem to try and solve and in the long run, they have been changing in the right direction.
This is another problem with being the world’s beat cop. See, the Chinese are actually pretty bad. They’re brutal to their own people. Not so much in the cities, and under the glare of the Olympics, say — but out in the country, when someone wants to have a 2nd child, or doesn’t want to work where the regime says he works, they’re as ruthless and brutal as, say, the Iranians. And I don’t think they’re “changing in the right direction,” at all. If anything, they crank down on the individual liberty more as the economic opportunity expands.
But you’re right, we can’t afford to get into a Cold War with them, let alone a hot war. But ask yourself this: what impression do you give when the beat cop turns a blind eye to the Mr. Bigs of the crime world, and instead beats the hell out of the little guy? Ignores the downtown crooked judge who overseas the import of $100 million in crack, because he’s in too well with City Hall, and instead righteously busts the neighborhood junkie or local dealer? It makes people cynical, is what it does.
Again, I’m not saying the present argument and conclusion is wrong. Just saying it isn’t so easy, and I am reluctant to see us make arguments like people are suffering and we have power! What more do you need to know? Well, a lot, actually. Methods matter, and what kind of incentive structure you set up matters, too. It’s not enough to see power here and trouble there, and think if you string an extension cord from one to the other, the situation will automatically get better.
I’m against any war with Obama as Commander-in-Chief for the simple reason that I know that he will act counter to America’s interest.
This is in Europe’s back yard, and it is long past time for them to step up and handle their own problems. Oh, wait, they’ve decimated their militaries in order to pay for their welfare states. Too bad.
I’m tired of nation-building and “helping” Third World shitholes. The only reason I would go to war in a Muslim country is for the purpose of glassification.
I really wish I could find out more about the rebels… are they primarily islamist, or not? If they’re islamist (such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt) I wish the loony Colonel good hunting. He’s a monster, but when monsters are killing other monsters, it leaves fewer monsters.
If they aren’t primarily islamist, we should have acted weeks ago, when it would have been easy to tip the scales in their favor.
Quadaffi (however the hell it’s spelled this week) is crazy, but that’s not the same as stupid. We cannot assume he’ll play this dumbly. His best move would be to do nothing for a while, gradually build up his assault force, and then when the West has it’s guard down (or has gotten tired and gone home), wipe out his opposition. He’ll be going for speed, and my guess is that’ll make it even bloodier than what it would have been.
Also, Obama is insane for announcing that we won’t commit any ground forces. Even if there’s not a chance in hell of us doing so, taking the option off the table is strategically nuts; it vastly simplifies the other side’s planning, logistic, and deployment issues.
Personally, I think that sometimes never is better than late, and our window of opportunity closed over a week ago. Now, all we’ll achieve is looking like fools.
The over-riding question at this point seems to be whether Obama has the legal authority to start dropping bombs on Libya. Reverend Sensing raises this point in the following link:
http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2011/03/illegal-libya-war.html
Personally, I am opposed to any intervention in this mess, but he is going to start a war with another nation, it would be nice if he got a declaration of war from Congress.
Don Says:
“Personally, I am opposed to any intervention in this mess, but he is going to start a war with another nation, it would be nice if he got a declaration of war from Congress.”
That is a good point and it is not as if congress wouldn’t be behind Obama all the way on this.
After watching the initial coverage this morning, I think Obama did a good job in allowing the Euros to implement the no fly zone. It looks like all they needed was our blessing and maybe a little technical support. Let’s just hope it wasn’t too late to help the rebels.
It will be interesting to see if the Arab League plays a role.
“The over-riding question at this point seems to be whether Obama has the legal authority to start dropping bombs on Libya.”
And/or:
where does the UN get it’s authority to issue a mandate authorizing a broad use of force to prevent the slaughter of Libyan citizens?
As for Obama, I *think* that US law allows the President to execute needed rapid responses without talking to Congress. This is to allow the President to act quickly when necessary. There is a time limit on these actions. And the definition of “needed rapid responses” and “when necessary” probably depends upon where the Congress’ mind is on the particular action.
Well Obama was clear about the rationale for this fight, in a speech he made today:
” But we cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people that there will be no mercy, and his forces step up their assaults on cities like Benghazi and Misurata, where innocent men and women face brutality and death at the hands of their own government.
So we must be clear: Actions have consequences, and the writ of the international community must be enforced. That is the cause of this coalition.
His attacks on his own people have continued. His forces have been on the move. And the danger faced by the people of Libya has grown.
We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world.”
We’re protecting the Libyan people from their leader, and acting in the “interests” of the US and the world. Would have been nice if he let us know what those interests are.
Let’s see if that’s good enough for the MSM
“Let’s see if that’s good enough for the MSM”
Oh of course it will be good enough. Obama could have gone to war because Kadafi picked the wrong teams in the NCAA tournament and they’d have bought it.
Personally, I’m not sure this was a good idea all around, but now that we are in it, I’m hoping for Kadafi going tango uniform.
Gregg Says:
“As for Obama, I *think* that US law allows the President to execute needed rapid responses without talking to Congress. ”
At this point, it is hard to argue that Obama was in such a rush that he couldn’t have got a vote in congress.
“We’re protecting the Libyan people from their leader, and acting in the “interests” of the US and the world.”
Aside from retribution for Moomar blowing up an airplane, I am not sure what our interests in Libya are. France and the other Euros that get oil through Libya certainly have an interest.
Saving civilians from a brutal death is always admirable though.
Chris L. Says:
“Personally, I’m not sure this was a good idea all around, but now that we are in it, I’m hoping for Kadafi going tango uniform.”
QFT ^^
“So we must be clear: Actions have consequences…”
So he says this when talking about the decisions of the leader of another country, but he completely ignored the concept from January 2009 until November 2010 under his own administration. And since November of 2010, he and his minions have pretty much ignored the fact that they LOST one house of Congress.
It’s just seems to be an odd turn of a phrase for his speech writer(s) to run through the teleprompter. He let the Iranian protesters go without even mentioning them or warning the government to be careful how they handled them.
THEN, he jumped in on Mubarak and supported the protesters. We even got to hear how the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t really a bad bunch of guys. Once the military took over, his admin. acted as if it was problem solved. But protest are going on still. Protests they haven’t addressed.
NEXT, he ignored Libya. The protests overlapped those in Egypt, starting before Mubarak was out of power. Every news agency in the country waited for some notice or mention of the Libyan protesters and some sign of support. Nope, for 3 weeks we heard that they were watching, keeping track, looking into…
ONLY when the FRENCH had seen enough to get them moving did he finally get involved. We waited for France? How sad is that as a commentary on his administration?
We’ll be lucky if Paraguay or Uruguay don’t send two john boats filled with Cub Scouts up the Potomac to storm the WH and take over the country whiles he’s in Brazil.
I do have a comment on the “3rd War” thing that all the news outlets used tonight. I think it’s a MSM ploy to make the (typical) liberal anti-war, war is bad, war is not healthy for children and other living things, kinds of statements. This isn’t a 3rd war, it’s not even a 2nd war.
It’s just one war, badly run I admit, done in an attempt to stop worldwide Islamic backed terrorism. There is no 2nd war anymore than fighting Japan AND Germany constituted 2 wars. The real problem now, is that we try to ‘win’ wars while trying to keep the media and the U.N. happy. We don’t want to create too much destruction or spend too much money.
Personally, I think we would have been better to spend $500B in three or four years. Order of battle as follows, kick ass, take names, throw down the gun or DIE, $10K per head cash for good intel on anyone who is new to the neighborhood carrying a gun or RPG, then, build a 6 lane freeway from Kabul to Baghdad, via Tehran, using the Imams and the Madmaninabadjacket as fertilizer for the shrubs around the border crossings, tell Pakistan to FIND Osama bin Laden or buy everyone in Tora Bora some lead lined clothing because we’re about to make the place glow in the dark.
Let them hold elections. Let us catch you stealing or dealing with the insurgents, you go to Gitmo, start at the top, work down keeping good people and removing bad people, right to the the 2nd ASST-Sec for Camel Droppings until they get the idea that we MEANT Democracy! THAT kind of seriousness would have gotten the people on our side 3 or 4 years ago.
And as I said before here just days ago. There were plenty of ‘smart’ people, learned people, intellectual people, in 1945, who said the Germans and Japanese could NEVER live like we do, vote like we do, act like we do, come into the modern world and make it work. But they did. In some ways they’ve done better than we have.
Our tax dollars hard at work. Penny wise and pound foolish. Nope, penny foolish, pound foolisher!
We’ll be lucky if Paraguay or Uruguay…
I’m sensing you may actually be for such a scenario?
KA,
I’m thinking the Cub Scouts would, at a minimum, be aware of the following and attempt to live by it,
.
.
I ________ promise to do my best
To do my duty to God and my country,
To help other people, and
To obey the Law of the Pack.
.
.
Simple and to the point. Personally, I don’t see it being all that different from ANY oath of office. And Cub Scouts might actually try to live by their oath(s). If nothing else, if they didn’t we could turn off their TV(s) and send them to bed.
But Obama, and the majority of the elected offals, cast them off, knowing they have 2, 4, or 6 years before we CAN turn off the TV or send them packing.
This started off as a stupid cast off statement, made by ME, to show just how secure the CinC makes ME feel. But sitting here now, it makes me realize that what we lack in this country IS that Scouting ethic. Before the Scout Ethic we had guys with military or business background.
Are all business or military people ethical? By no means. But they at least had JOBS, with bosses that expected results. Please show me the Rules of Ethics or the Listed Guidelines for Community Organizing.
Cub Scouts at least attempt to go by the rules, they have to in order to go up the ranking chart. IF you have achieved the premiere job in the free world, without ever really working, without any set of personal or familial rules, with no list of close friends, but instead you have ‘fellow travelers’ with whom you are surrounded, in the midst of achieving the top, you turn your back on two religions and then you run up against trouble, as do we all, I expect you have nowhere to turn for support, knowledge or life experience.
Give me the Cub Scouts any day.
In other words, old fashioned values? I was always having two much fun to get passed tenderfoot. Bob Hope at the 73 Jamboree in Idaho being a highlight. I fear we will all be swept aside in our nostalgia because of the new reality. If you have ever wondered how a people could allow tyranny… we need not wonder anymore.
two??? Phonetic fingers strike again.
The President briefed the leaders of Congress before this operation began, and the War Powers Act can still be complied with, by Congressional action within 60 days. And of course, no White House since 1975 (either party) has even admitted that the WPA is Constitutional.
We have begun an air campaign in aid of a militia that have yet to show they can stand and fight against organized troops. It is very possible that some trained troops (not ours, perhaps Egypt plus other Muslim forces) will have to go in to finish Qaddafi. The people in Libya will not be safe until the regime is gone.
This is Europe’s source of oil, not ours.
Another consideration I’ve seen raised: if the world had not acted to protect Benghazi from the massacre threatened by Qaddafi, then other regimes would have felt free to fire away at their own people. It’s about limits.
Another question was: where did the UNSC get it’s authority?
Well, a reading of the actual resolution may provide a clue or three. Off the Guardian’s website, here’s a URL for the full text. Read the whole thing.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/un-security-council-resolution
The UN acted on the request of three other organizations: the Arab League, the African Union and an umbrella organization of all the Islamic states (that includes the non-Arabic Muslims, like Malaysia for example.) All three organizations requested that the UN authorize a no-fly zone over Libya, which necessarily involves destroying the air defenses of that country.
And that, sports fans, is the goal of this operation, for the moment. Mission Creep may rear its ugly head. Remember how the “expert” Neo-Cons screwed up in Iraq and mired us in a swamp, a true clusterfuck.
One final comment: in my view, the Cheney Administration frequently acted against the real interests of THIS country.
the Cheney Administration
The what?
If it was a “Cheney administration,” why didn’t Scooter Libby get a pardon?
Another question was: where did the UNSC get it’s authority?
Out of its ass, of course. The usual place.
The Security Council was originally founded to deal with military threats to international security, like a Germany declaring war on everybody at once. But it long ago ceased to fill that useful and limited role, and became merely another chancre sore Center of Government Power. Soon enough it will be declaring climate change and/or socialized medicine a threat to international security and issuing strongly-worded resolutions.
Nations of the world giving power to the U.N. is one interpretation of revelations that occurs just before a period that would end all life if not cut short. Being alive as prophesy is being resolved is an interesting feeling.
YMMV.
ken, I suggest nations ceding sovereign power to the UN is like men placing themselves voluntarily in bondage as serfs to the local lord, a medieval concept of donating your free will to another if he agrees to relieve you of your conscience, do all your moral thinking for you.
Nations meeting to confer and decide together — consultation — is one thing. Federation, quite another.
Ridding the world of tyranny isn’t anywhere in our founding documents; ridding America of tyranny (and maintaining that freedom) definitely is.
I’ve quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms2.blogspot.com/2011/03/re-my-goals-for-our-libyan-adventure.html