You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: WoT
Give War a Chance
2011-03-27
Bill Kristol weighs on what is, or at least should be, good advice for all of us conservatives right now, advice that I myself haven't been following completely:
... here's a word of counsel to some of our fellow conservatives: Chill.

We're at war. We need to succeed in that war. By all means, be generous with the constructive criticism. (For example, it seems ridiculous for the United States not to be arming the Libyan opposition.) Note for the historical record the Obama administration's dithering and double-talk. But don't carp and cavil in ways that suggest America can't prevail, or that America shouldn't prevail. Don't revel in every administration misstep. Don't chortle at every misstatement. Don't exacerbate the administration's failure to build domestic support for the mission. Put the mission, and the country, first.

Which means, to some extent, that we might consider biting our collective tongues, wishing the president well because he is our president, and helping him get it right rather than pointing with glee to everything he's doing wrong. Which in turn means that we might want to cool it with the 24/7 criticism. Let's support our troops and their mission, and give the war a chance--even though it's a war that's not being perfectly conducted by an administration that offers plenty of cause for frustration.

You go to war with the president you have. This isn't the one we conservatives preferred. We have a good chance to remove him in 2012. We should work to do so. But first let's remove Qaddafi, help get Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain and Yemen right, and--who knows?--despite our reluctant president, push the administration to have the backs of those fighting for regime change in Syria and Iran.
I don't think we can push this man to do the right thing on just about anything. But we should be very careful in our criticism so that we're not blamed for any disaster that unfolds -- and you know the MSM will be quick to blame us (that copy, I wager, has already been typeset). The Republican leadership should be pushing for openness and clarity in our goals while making clear that we support our troops, and we support any group of people who seek freedom and who are in rebellion against a bloodthirsty dictator.
Posted by:Steve White

#13  Look I'm all for my football team, but when the championship is on the line, and its 4th and 20, coach sends out the I-formation then walks off the field before the hike.

Which tribes? The franchise players or free agents?
Posted by: swksvolFF   2011-03-27 19:02  

#12  That's a win-win situation if I ever heard of one!
Posted by: Bobby   2011-03-27 12:20  

#11  I would combine the ideas of Bernardz and Jerry Pournelle:

1) let Gadaffy leave with a few billion dollars to a safe haven

2) then kill him and deliver the head to the nearest US embassy.

Why make life hard?
Posted by: Steve White   2011-03-27 11:07  

#10  As to Pournell - I believe that is covered in the constitution as a letter of Marque and/or Repriasal. I believe congress can issue that order at any time - though I'm not a lawyer.
Posted by: Hellfish   2011-03-27 09:37  

#9  And the longer they fight each other, the better.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2011-03-27 07:57  

#8  #6 The Brits are now talking about arming the rebels.

IMO they should be allowed to fight it out with AK47s. Posted by phil_b

In keeping with past performance in search of somewhat equitable, profit making outcomes, the French should clandestinely supply arms to Qaddafi while the Poms and the US supply arms to the rebels, thus keeping nearly everyone happy.
Posted by: Besoeker   2011-03-27 06:59  

#7  "The domestic politics failed. Lets start a war. Conservatives always support a POTUS who's bombing somebody."
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2011-03-27 03:16  

#6  The Brits are now talking about arming the rebels.

IMO they should be allowed to fight it out with AK47s.
Posted by: phil_b   2011-03-27 02:16  

#5  How are we to win the war when a win is not defined by this PREZ?
Posted by: Water Modem   2011-03-27 02:10  

#4  A cheaper solution would be to offer Gaddafi and a few other people amnesty. Let them leave with a few billions of their stolen money to that country of refugee.



Posted by: Bernardz   2011-03-27 01:33  

#3  I like Jerry Pournelle's idea:
"The Congress hereby directs the Treasurer of the United States to pay the sum of $200 million dollars in US currency, and the Secretary of State to deliver a United States passport made out to any name the winner chooses, to anyone who will deliver to any United States Embassy the head of Colonel Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi (Arabic: معمر القذافي‎ Muʿammar al-Qaddāfī). The head may but need not be attached to the body. This prize shall be paid upon confirmation of the identity of the head. The winner of this prize is declared a friend of the United States."

No doubt the drafting could be improved but it is important that it be brief and unambiguous: Bring us his head and you get the money and a new identity, no questions asked, all previous actions against the US forgiven, and when the winner takes the money and leaves no one will follow.

It would certainly be cheaper in blood and treasure than continuing the war to a similar completion.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2011-03-27 00:47  

#2  Unfortunately the rebels' idea of freedom seems to amount to electing a dictator of their choice and wiping out Israel.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2011-03-27 00:45  

#1  We're at war. We need to succeed in that war.

That's funny - the administration doesn't think so with Libya. The UN doesn't think so. NATO doesn't think so. The Arab League - it depends on what day it is and what flavor of hummus they had.


For example, it seems ridiculous for the United States not to be arming the Libyan opposition.

It'd be kinda nice if the intelligence community came up with some objective idea of just who the US would be arming.

I'm personally not all that crazy with supplying those who'd end up being an Islamic version of Jimmy Carter's Nicaragua, or an Iran-on-the-Med.
Posted by: Pappy   2011-03-27 00:45  

00:00