[Hot Air] It looks like the U.S.-led fight against ISIS is probably moving to Libya. AFP reports there are plenty of people in the Defense Department worried about ISIS' movement into the North African country.
It doesn't appear President Barack Obama is interested in getting militarily involved in Libya, but that doesn't mean the Pentagon isn't pushing him. One thing The New York Times points out is not on the table is "ground troops" (emphasis mine).
The "wary of embarking on an intervention in another Muslim country" line is beyond hilarious (or #headdesk) because Obama's administration has intervened in more countries than George W. Bush's administration. The U.S. has militarily attacked three countries (Iraq, Syria, and Libya) under Obama versus Bush's two (Iraq and Afghanistan). The Afghanistan surge also happened on Obama's watch. The type of military involvement may have been different (random bomb strikes and "advisers" vs. full scale invasion) but the fact all the Left's anti-war activists from 2003 and 2004 don't seem to be so anti-war these days, shows how they're willing to sacrifice their own "principles" if "their guy" is in the White House.
The fact Obama appears a little hesitant on attacking Libya (which it shouldn't have gotten involved in in the first place) could be a sign Obama is hoping it won't become a campaign issue for the Democrats. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, the GOP candidate could bring up the fact Libya is a mess and remind the people Clinton was the one who pushed for involvement in the first place.
| If we do invade this year the Pub nominee should bring it up anyway; if we do invade and it becomes a clusterfarg the Pub nominee has two things to discuss... |
If Bernie Sanders is the nominee, the GOP candidate could point out Sanders has no real strategy on ISIS and supports the current Administration's efforts which would just drag things down even more.
This depends on who the GOP nominee is to begin with. The only one who really believed in non-interventionism was Rand Paul, and he dropped out earlier this week.
| Cruz, Rubio, Bush and Trump are not classical interventionists, they're more Jacksonians: intervene only if really necessary and then do so with overwhelming force. The sort of intervention that President "Lead from Behind" will stage won't be that, and that will be another point to make in the debates. |
|