|Hat tip to the Council of Conservative Citizens|
The attack did not have the desired effect. A defiant Gadhafi said Libya will fight back against undeserved naked aggression. Gadhafi also said the U.N. charter provides for Libya's right to defend itself in a war zone, and weapons depots will be opened. "All you people of the Islamic nations and Africa, and Latin America and Asia, stand with the Libyan people in its fight against this aggression," Gadhafi said. Gadhafi further stated "I have all the Libyan people with me and I'm prepared to die. And they are prepared to die for me. Men, women and even children." In addition, the Libyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that it no longer recognizes the UN resolution urging a cease-fire and establishing a no-fly zone over the country, is asking that an emergency UN Security Council meeting be called, and has announced its withdrawal from all EU-joint programs aimed at fighting illegal immigration. Here's a YouTube upload of a 13-minute BBC report:
So just who did Libya attack? Did Libya attack the United States, the United Kingdom, France, or any of these other coalition partners? Nope. Of course, it is believed that Gadhafi ordered the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland in 1988, but we previously got payback for Libyan involvement in a Berlin disco bombing when President Ronald Reagan launched Operation Eldorado Canyon in 1986. We failed to follow up immediately on Pan Am Flight 103. So the fact is, Libya attacked no one; this is an internal conflict. And even a scumbag like Gadhafi has the right to defend his own country. Oh, and something else to consider. How do we know a successor government in Libya won't be worse than the present regime? Gadhafi could be replaced by a Islamofascist who will impose the iron grip of barbaric Sharia law upon the country. Do you think Israel's dancing the hora over the departure of Mubarak from Egypt? Absolutely not -- at least they knew what they'd get from Mubarak. They don't know what they'll get from a new Egyptian government. Perhaps a repeat of "the Pharaoh that knew not Joseph"? Hamas has already taken courage from Mubarak's departure and has stepped up attacks on Israel.
Utah Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz has now come out against our participation in the attack on Libya.
Meanwhile, there are people who are attacking other countries, and we're doing nothing about it. Somali pirates have been picking off merchant ships one by one for years now, yet no coalition has assembled to fire 112 Tomahawk missiles into Somalia to persuade them to change their behavior. Hijacking merchant ships causes real harm -- not only to the crews, but also economic harm in the form of increased insurance costs for the shippers, such costs being ultimately passed on to consumers. And contrary to the claims of those who state that the pirates are "poverty-stricken", some of these pirates have become multimillionaires. According to CNBC, one Somali pirate, Saeed Yare, said he made $2.4 million in 2010: $1.2 million for investing in the venture that led to the hijacking of the British-flagged Asian Glory, another $700,000 for Saudi tanker Al Nisr Al Saudi and $500,000 for Bulgarian vessel Panega. Yare said he spent some of the cash on weapons, private bodyguards, luxury cars, trucks, a boat and three villas. And many Somali fishermen are making a killing off piracy; the pirates have extended their activities from the Horn of Africa as far south as the Seychelles Islands and eastwards towards India.
You want to break the back of this piracy? You don't do it by firing 112 Tomahawk missiles into a country that did nothing to us. You do it by tracking the pirates back to their home villages, warning the Somali government to either take action or face the consequences, and then, if the Somali government doesn't take action, launching a strike package to obliterate the villages. Leave nothing standing and nobody breathing. I guarantee you there'll be no more piracy after that. These semi-civilized fishermen and peasants are impressed by nothing other than raw, naked, brute force.
If we absolutely, positively find it necessary to aid the Libyan rebels to salve our stricken consciences, then do it the way it was done in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation. Give them the TOOLS to do it THEMSELVES rather than do it for them. We merely gave the Afghan rebels Stinger missiles, and that was enough for them to fight the Soviets to a standstill for 10 years and wear them down. If the Libyan rebels really want to liberate themselves from Gadhafi, they'll do it themselves if we merely give them the tools. But we must quit interfering in every country that crosses us, or it will blow up in our faces one day. What happens if a bunch of Mexican insurgents start a rebellion against the United States in Arizona, and a bunch of coalition partners decide to declare Arizona a "no-fly zone"? How would we react?
When you sow the wind, you risk reaping the whirlwind.