The Only Logical End Game for Libya: Elections
March 28, 2011
On all four Sunday shows yesterday, the common topic was Libya. “Should we of gotten involved” and “should we of explained how we intend to get out before we intervened”, were the questions of the day. The one question NO ONE asked and NO ONE volunteered an answer to was “How do we get out?” Donald Rumsfeld of all people criticized President Obama for “confusion & ambiguity” regarding our mission in Libya. I kid you not. Eight years ago, it was Democrats asking President Bush to explain, “once you remove Saddam, then what?” You create a “power vacuum” with no one to fill it. (I’ve previously mentioned how the Bush Administrations original “exit strategy” for Iraq once Saddam was overthrown was to replace him with Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalibi, who was spoon-feeding the Bush Administration lies about “Saddam’s stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and a burgeoning nuclear weapons program”. Then, after the invasion, when no WMD’s were found, the Bushies realized they had been duped. Their one & only “exit strategy” vanished in a puff of smoke, and instead of putting Chalibi in charge, tried to convince the American public that the guy they trusted to the point of committing the entire country to war, ‘MUST be an Iranian spy’. I mean, how else could he of fooled the entire Bush Administration? It couldn’t have been that they were SO eager & willing to accept his claims at face value that they never questioned his veracity, now could it? Heck no! He just HAD to of been a brilliant and highly-trained super spy from Iran that conned an “unwilling” Bush Administration into doing Iran’s dirty work of taking out long-time enemy Saddam, for them! And the Bushie’s point-man on that strategy, with no backup plan of his own because they were SO confident in what Chalibi was telling them was true, Donald H. Rumsfeld, is now criticizing President Obama for not stating not being clear what the mission was before invading Libya? Right question, wrong hypocrite asking it.)
Rumsfeld: If you go into something with confusion and ambiguity about what the mission is — and we’ve heard four or five different explanations about why we’re there — and that is the root of the problem, is the confusion that comes from that, confusion about what the mission is, confusion about who the rebels are, confusion about whether or not Gadhafi should be left in power, confusion about what the command and control should be. – Donald Rumsfeld on ABC’s “ThisWeek”
The next question everyone is asking, “What if Kadafi stays?” Can we leave Libya with Kadafi still in charge? That seems to be an unacceptable outcome. So do we bomb his palace until he leaves, or aid the rebels until they take him out? Do we send in ground forces to chase him out or kill him ourselves? What would the Arab Coalition have to say about that? We certainly can’t afford (literally) to get embroiled in a THIRD war.
Is NO ONE going to step forward with an idea on how to end this latest conflict, or are we just going to mill around for another eight years like we have in Iraq? <Sigh> I guess it’s up to me.
Kadafi and his sons have claimed that the rebels are really just “a tiny minority in the North” and that the majority of Libyans are perfectly happy with Kadafi. That IS the question then, isn’t it? Do most Libyan’s really oppose Kadafi? Why not take a poll? You know, what do they call them? ELECTIONS. That IS what “Democracy” is supposed to be all about, right? The people choosing their own leaders through “free & fair” elections? The conflict in Libya ISN’T going to end with us killing Kadafi or even arresting him and putting him on trial in a kangaroo court like we did with Saddam. Yet, leaving Kadafi in charge is unpalatable.
Kadafi and his sons claim most Libyan’s support him. “Okay”, I say, “Prove it. Put your money where your mouth is. You’ve been a Dictator for 40 years. Let’s put it to a vote. Should you stay or should you go now”, as the song says. It took the Bushies THREE YEARS to come up with “elections” as an alternative exit strategy for Iraq. Do we REALLY need three more years to figure out what we already know? ELECTIONS ARE THE “END GAME”.
For a FRACTION of the cost, the UN can maintain the “No Fly, No Ground” safety zone over northern Libya until well-monitored elections can be held in June. A peaceful, diplomatic end to the conflict in Libya. If the people still want Kadafi, brutal or no, that’s none of our concern. Secretary Gates on ABC’s “This Week” conceded yesterday that “Libya is NOT a threat to us” and that our involvement there is purely “humanitarian”. So if Kadafi wins the election, we’re no worse off than we are now. If Kadafi loses, the Libyan people will have already chosen his replacement (rather than us being viewed as hand-picking another tin-pot puppet dictator).
I don’t think “leaving Kadafi in charge until we can hold elections in just a few months at a fraction of the cost in money/lives, while promoting the ideals of democracy” would be considered “intolerable” by any sane person (sorry GOP, that leaves most of you out.) But let’s give it a go, shall we? You wanted an “exit strategy”? I gave you one. The best one. The ONLY one.
 |
Please REGISTER to post comments or be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE7+ users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! | |
 |
||
March 28, 2011
· 
Admin Mugsy · 
No Comments - Add
Posted in: Middle East, Politics, Seems Obvious to Me, War
![](http://mugsysrapsheet.com/4blog/gop_death_cult.jpg")
Leave a Reply