Lately, we're getting a bit desperate for topics to discuss that don't make us sound too much like an unhinged foaming partisan hack. It's not easy. We're very excitable around this blog.
Still, sounding like you're a few screws short of marching out of a fifteenth-story window is really not the way to appeal to a broad demographic of readership. Although, quite frankly, it would be quite the feat for our readership to go any lower. Perhaps if we closed our eyes when posting?
So over the next few weeks, we'll discussing some calmer, more cerebral topics that don't get us all in a lather. That's right. You're about to be treated a rational Strawman Blogger. Probably. At least until such a time as we go off our meds.
We'll start with Libya. We're calm about Libya. Partially because we're an insular, narrow-minded American with a shaky grasp of geography, but mostly because it's a messy regional conflict, and it's unlikely that anyone in America would be dim enough to needlessly entangle themselves in a war with no clear good guys, uncertain prospects, and no clear timeline for resolution.
What's that? Eh? Oh.
We really cannot fathom the mindset that has led the administration to believe that lobbing cruise missiles over sky of north Africa is a good idea, other than that we have some lying around and someone thought it would be fun. But as a military tactic? That kind of assumes that the one thing preventing the rebels from sweeping into power in Western Libya is a Tomahawk strike. Call us unconvinced.
Now, it's entirely possible that proper air support will do a world of good for the rebels. As our wiser friends have pointed out, it's not like Ghaddafi's army is exceptionally large or well-organized, and the fact that a fair portion of it consists of the local hired help is unlikely to improve long-term morale. But historically, air campaigns have not been terribly successful at disloding committed opponents. Battle of Britian, Kosovo, and ect. and so on. As it turns out, it is difficult to occupy a country with an F-22.
Apart from the success of the campaign, we really question the point of getting involved in the first place. Look, people. War sucks. It sucks a little bit for a lot of people, and it sucks much much worse for the few people we ask to do all the fighting. All in all, it's something to be avoided as much as possible.
But if the goal is important, and if it helps secure American interests, than sometimes the dirty work becomes necessary dirty work. And as the saying goes, if something is worth doing, it's worth doing right.
So the question remains: Is Libya important to America? If so, then why are we wasting our time faffing about with cruise missiles when something more direct is required? And if it's not - well, why are we still faffing about with cruise missiles?
The answer, of course, is that it's easy. Americans are not highly bothered when a bomb lands on the head of a civilian, provided it does so outside a comfortable several thousand mile radius. But they are very bothered when American soldiers are put in harms way. To avoid stressing anyone out, our default option becomes an expensive air campaign of questionable merit, even if it's not likely to produce any good result, simply because no one is going to object.
So there you go. We do, of course, hope it all works out for the best. Previous comparisons aside, Quaddafi is not terribly well entrenched. But it does make one wonder.
