Actually, there is no war in Libya. It's all diplomacy. Donna Brazile says so.

This video should provide a sober second thought to those who believe that Messiah Obama can do no wrong.

Re: "Few Americans realize it, but our leaders who lack military experience tend to be more hawkish than leaders who have served in the military," said Matt Pottinger...

That's an excellent point. In the early '80s, Sec. of Defense Casper Weinberger and the Pentagon opposed U.S. intervention in Lebanon's civil war. The record suggests to me that Pres. Reagan should've accepted that recommendation.

I didn't agree with Obama's decision to intervene in the Libyan conflict. However, I believe he did a good job of making the case for intervention (and France's Sarkozy was in front of him.) Also, Obama was sensible to line up considerable international support for the endeavor.

The Women Who Called for War changed their minds three days later and just wanted an apology.

I didn't agree with Obama's decision to intervene in the Libyan conflict. However, I believe he did a good job of making the case for intervention

A pity that he failed to make that case before Congress. You know, that Congress, the one charged with declaring wars and funding them?

And what was that case, again? this is a war - oh, excuse me, a kinetic military action - for Europe's oil. Except the Euro's can't pull it off by themselves, so they come running to us.

Again. Just like they couldn't take care of the Balkans back in the 1990s.

And to add insult to injury, unless we wage a real war and put boots on the ground, Uncle Muammar is likely going to win. He'll eventually turn the rebels into blood pudding, and then he'll inflict the security service on the suriving population. And then we'll still have to deal with Gaddafi as leader of a nation.

No hard feelings, right? let me think, if I were Gaddafi...yeah, there'd be hard feelings, and I'd find a way to extract my pound of flesh.

You can't declare war if the "war" is covert...isn't it a conflict of interest to do so?

With modern warfare, do you think it would ever be in our country's interest tor "declare" war again? seriously....

"Few Americans realize it, but our leaders who lack military experience tend to be more hawkish than leaders who have served in the military"

Because they don't understand war, or the military. One of the basic things you learn in the military is, for example, that air power is great, but in the end you must have boots on the ground (the rebels don't count - they are completely clueless amateurs). Our glorious leaders do not understand this, and think that they can clinically bomb Libya into a democracy.

"And what was that case, again? this is a war - oh, excuse me, a kinetic military action - for Europe's oil. Except the Euro's can't pull it off by themselves, so they come running to us."

Actually, no. As a European, I can assure you that no one over here is terribly worried about oil. Whoever wins in Libya, they will be selling oil. The French were pushing for intervention, because of their historical ties to Libya; also, everyone despises Qadaffi. Neither of those is a decent reason to intervene. The intervention was strongly pushed by the USA, for no clear reason. Frankly, this looks like school-yard politics being played by heads of state.

Why did the Americans push for intervention? Probably for the same reason they attacked Iraq. That is either (a) because the American government is incapable of keeping its nose out of other people's business, or perhaps (b) because the American government needs external enemies to keep Americans from looking at the domestic situation. I tend to go for the latter; creating external enemies is a classic technique for an authoritarian government seeking to preserve and increase its power.

Even if intervention was justified, the time to intervene was within the first few days. Several well-placed, anonymouse cruise missiles would have had a huge psychological impact on the Libyan military, which was teetering on the brink of desertion. After the politicians wasted weeks talking, it was too late - Qadaffi's military was firmly under control, and the rebels were losing badly. This would have been obvious to any decent military advisor; presumably, the politicians were simply not interested in listening.

You can't declare war if the "war" is covert...isn't it a conflict of interest to do so?

What, precisely, is covert about the Great Libyan Adventure? and Congress' assent to such action isn't just a "good idea", it's the law.

With modern warfare, do you think it would ever be in our country's interest tor "declare" war again? seriously....

Now we call it authorization for the use of force. Seriously, you want the decision to take the United States into a war to be made by exactly one person?

"The intervention was strongly pushed by the USA"

Excuse me? The EU, NATO, and the Arab League all begged for U.S. intervention, and as a candidate Obama ran against this very sort of thing. I think that once some polls get done on the question, you will see that a clear majority of Americans oppose it (or are at best indifferent).

Re: "Why did the Americans push for intervention?"

I took Obama at his word that he was doing it to avoid a massacre, or more than one. I didn't agree with the intervention, but Qaddafi made threats that made it clear there would be plenty of innocent victims in an attempt to snuff out the rebels. This situation is one where a president is damned no matter what his choice is. There are plenty of Ds and Rs on both sides of this decision, and some of the interventionists wanted to go much further than Obama.