Me too.

I like to say "I was against the war before I was against the war."

And Ralph Nader is publicly asking, "If y'all wanted to impeach Bush, why not Obomba?"

I await the cries of outrage to burn the apostate.

I think it's important to point out that the rationale for entering Iraq was much different that the rational for entering Libya. People are much more likely to get behind a clear-cut humanitarian mission than a war against a countering ideology or some perceived intangible, and to date, unmaterialized threat to national security.

"I think it's important to point out that the rationale for entering Iraq was much different that the rational for entering Libya. People are much more likely to get behind a clear-cut humanitarian mission than a war against a countering ideology or some perceived intangible, and to date, unmaterialized threat to national security."

And so Saddam Hussein's gassing and murder of thousands of Iraqi Kurds was just an intangible ideology? Or was it because the Kurds didn't have a voice on Twitter that made their plight so non-compelling?

I was just as much against the intrusion into Iraq as I am into Libya and I resent this altruistic excuse to justify nation building.

What happens if Qaddafi holds on? What if he remains in power despite the revolution, the airstrikes, and the weight of world opinion wanting him gone?

If that happens, we've got a brutal dictator with a history of attacking his own people, who supports terrorism, who has a history of purusing WMD research, who has a huge chip on his shoulder against the West for its past military action against him, and who has a pool of oil money he can spend on getting his revenge.

Sound familiar?

What happens if Qaddafi holds on? What if he remains in power despite the revolution, the airstrikes, and the weight of world opinion wanting him gone?

This is the "what happens next" question I mentioned in the last post; one that it appears has not been contemplated at all, much less answered satisfactorily. Our mission in Iraq similarly failed to adequately answer that question, and we've been paying for it ever since. I suspect we're heading into another open-ended quagmire in the Middle East. Yay.

Of course, points out Robert Stacy McCain, Andrew Sullivan is claiming Obama was duped into the war in Libya by John McCain and Hillary Clinton

I'm not fan of Robert Stacy McCain, who appears to be one of the least-considered and most intemperate commentators on the right. But mocking Sullivan here seems right – Clinton's job is to advise Obama, but it's Obama who must make the call to deploy our military. The responsibility is his, and his alone.

I'll tell you what happens next.

If Kadhaffi lives, we get Locherbie 2.

...Clinton's job is to advise Obama....

And his is to seek out and consider advice of the people that he put in charge of his various Cabinet departments.

Obama has avoided Clinton or chopped the rug out from under her so many times, she's practically a non-player in US foreign affairs.

Reports have Clinton very frustrated with Obama's indecision and waffling.

When asked on a recent Sunday morning talk show if she would continue as Secretary of State in a second Obama administration, she replied with a terse, "no." No further explanation was given.

====================

I think Hillary's waiting for the Democratic Party to become so frustrated with Obama that they look for a savior to run against him in the 2012 primaries (like they looked to Ted Kennedy in 1976 when they'd had enough of Carter).

She needs to look like a loyal soldier and not an opportunist. So, she'll stay on the job as long as possible.

In 1976, the Dems were frustrated with Jimmy Carter and knew he couldn't win the election. But they only hinted to Kennedy that they needed him to run. They never outright drafted him, leaving it to Kennedy to rebel against an incumbent Democratic president on his own, something he wouldn't (or couldn't) do.

For their timidity, the Dems got 12 years of Republican presidents. They won't make that mistake with Obama. If it comes to needing to get dump the incumbent this time, they'll draft Hillary outright.

If anarchy prevails after a fall of Gaddafi, we become morally culpable to re-establish order, ala Iraq.

This could very expensive--and we are $3 trillion in and counting already on Iraqistan.

Karzai is an opimum-fueled Islamic jackanape, who will execute men who convert to Christianity. The Afghan government is regarded as one of the very most corrupt in the entire world.

The Iraqis are becoming best pals with the Iranians.

And we want to dupe these results in Libya?

Our reward for risking out US Air Force pilots' lives making Kosovo safe for Muslim Kosovars was to have one of them shoot two US Air Force servicemen at a German airport while shouting "Allahu Akbar!"

I can't wait to see what our reward for making Libya safe for Libyan Muslims is.

Conan it was 1980 not 1976.
Botu the amount spent on Iraq and Afghanistan in total thru November 2010 is 907.3 billion.

Not arguing with you guys just setting the record straight.

As far as Obama goes, he has supporters that will defend him no matter what he does. As do all presidents. These kind of people can never have a reasonable discourse nor can they ever stop placing blame elsewhere.

Should we be involved in Libya, diplomatically yes as a military force, no. My reasoning for no military action is simple, since WWII we have not engaged in a war with the intention of winning. Until our nations resolve in any war effort is to win, there is no point in getting involved…..

Mocking Andrew Sullivan is always right, Christopher.

Okay, maybe not always, but near enough that it's an excellent heuristic.

The man is deeply un-serious. Which would be fine, except that he pretends to be serious, and people somehow sometimes treat him as if he were so.

Ed-

Wikipedia--

According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money. The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per U.S. citizen.[9][10]

Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, has stated the total costs of the Iraq War on the US economy will be three trillion dollars in a moderate scenario, and possibly more in the most recent published study, published in March 2008.[11] Stiglitz has stated: "The figure we arrive at is more than $3 trillion. Our calculations are based on conservative assumptions...Needless to say, this number represents the cost only to the United States. It does not reflect the enormous cost to the rest of the world, or to Iraq."[11]

BOTU talking now: And since then we have put another four years into these wars, and are deeper than ever into Afghanie.

Yes, it is true we have blown $3 trillion in Iraqistan, and probably more.

Conan it was 1980 not 1976.

Ed, you're right. It was the 1980 elections when the Dems were trying to figure a way to dump a sitting president as their candidate.

It was the 1976 elections when Jimmy Carter came out of nowhere and charmed everyone with his "I'm an outsider untainted by Washington and will fix everything wrong with politics today" rhetoric.

BTW, repond to BOTU at your own peril. He doen't actually have anything rational to say here. He's just a troll who repeats the same thing almost every time he posts anything and he always gets his oft-repeated "facts" wrong, despite being corrected many times. He'll just suck you into a pointless exchange. Most of us have taken to ignoring him.

Botu,

An estimate is a guess not an actual accounting.

You posted:
“According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017”
Note the word could in that sentence, very subjective to say the least. And Wikipedia is the worst place to get info because anyone can edit it to say whatever they choose.

According to the Congressional Research Service the entire amount of monies spent by the end of the fiscal year 2011 will be 1.3 trillion. Here is the link: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

To me it’s all to much, but it is incorrect to say it’s over 3 trillion…..

Ed-

Only if you think the USA can borrow money for free. We do not borrow for free; we borrow for market-rates domestically and from overseas.

(The CBO used the qualifier "could" not because they are guessing, rather they are assuming moderate interest rates. A spike in rates owuld be wrose; lower rates would make the situation a little better).

We never enacted a "war tax' to pay for these wars (indeed, we took tax cuts). You have the CBO and a reasonaly respected economist putting together figures in the $3 trillion range.

Your position is like saying that goods you bought on your credit cards will only cost their original purchase price, even though you plan to pay down the card over 15 years.

I concede Wikipedia is not vetted; however in this case I was just quickly running down some stats. The stats you provided are good, but the money was borrowed, and there will be interest bills.

Don’t understand why we’re bombing Libya. Why the cruise missiles? Why didn’t we simply restrict ourselves to that which was requested of us – a no fly zone? Shoot or otherwise force down Gadaffi’s planes, but otherwise let the rebels take their own country back.

Shoot or otherwise force down Gadaffi’s planes, but otherwise let the rebels take their own country back.

Because that's bullshit Bill. The cruise missiles were used to destroy an extensive air defense network so that French and UK planes could operate safely over the area to do exactly what you say. The world doesn't work the way you want. Destroying SAM sites is mostly what went on during the Iraqi no-fly zone too - Iraq would fire on the patrolling planes, you have to keep them suppressed so you can maintain the coverage and keep their air force on the ground. Using cruise missiles was a pretty expensive way to do it, but in the absence of an aircraft carrier or Egyptian involvement it's about all there was.

I'm seeing on the news right now that there are official announcements that now that the anti-air network is mostly toast control of the operation will be handed over to France. Good news - for all the "cheese eating surrender monkey" talk, France has a pretty ruthless reputation when it comes to international relations. And don't have to worry so much about the constant second guessing of their actions that the US gets. I doubt they'll take the actual resolution too seriously, they'll make sure Gaddafi is gone.

I've wondered where the No Blood for Oil and Code Pink mobs have gone too Amy. A number of my university educated left-ish friends have been trying to tell me why this is different. My answer usually runs along the lines of

1. You said Iraq was made up of three different tribes that could only be controlled by a strongman. So is Libya - the rebellion is largely concentrated in Cyrenaica, one of the three regions/tribes that make up Libya.
2. You said the opposition was corrupt and the populace not ready for democracy in Iraq. Same here.
3. It's all about oil, just like you said last time. Well, I guess that's why France has stepped up. They're not getting sweetheart exploration deals in return for their veto this time (or possibly they are getting them, promised by the rebels, which is my guess).

So I agree - where are the protests?

Why the cruise missiles? Why didn’t we simply restrict ourselves to that which was requested of us – a no fly zone?

As many opponents of the no-fly zone pointed out, implementing one would involve missile strikes to destroy LIbya's air defenses.

I've wondered where the No Blood for Oil and Code Pink mobs have gone too Amy.

This was done with essentially no warning or public discussion in the U.S. Not enough time to get people worked up. (a bad thing, IMO)