Last Updated:November 30 @ 08:54 am

The need for some international guts in Libya!

By The Political Commentator

Libya No-Fly Zone

Let's start today's conversation with Libya, President Obama, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the establishment of a no-fly zone.

Debate over a Libya "No-Fly" Zone

While the Libyan strongman is strafing his citizens from the air, the world sits idly by while assessing options. President Obama supplies his classic administration rhetoric telling Gaddafi that he must step down. "Strong" words from the President that are sure to have absolutely no impact:

"... Libyan leader’s defiance means “there is a danger of a stalemate that over time could be bloody.”

“Moammar Gadhafi has lost legitimacy to lead, and he must leave,” the president said, while calling for an end to violence and a need to meet the “aspirations of the Libyan people for freedom, democracy and dignity.”

“He has lost legitimacy with his people,” the president repeated. “And so let me just be very unambiguous about this. Colonel Gadhafi needs to step down from power and leave. That is good for his country. It is good for his people. It's the right thing to do...” (ABC News)

Could become bloody? What television station is he watching? The rebel leader Al Mahdi has stated that more than 6,000 people have already died. What exactly is the President's definition of bloody?

In the meantime people continue to die, unrest spreads and the country moves closer to all out civil war. Unfortunately as liberal leaders like our President will do in times of crisis, Obama will seek an international coalition to consider to consider necessary action like a no-fly zone. Without that he likely remain inert.

For Secretary of Defense Gates caution and hesitation are the watchword when he said:

"... Testifying before Congress, Mr. Gates criticized "loose talk" about military intervention in Libya, where military rebels and civilian demonstrators are trying to topple the country's strongman leader, Col. Moammar Gadhafi.

"Let's just call a spade a spade," Mr. Gates said. "A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya." (WSJ)

The President and Gates seem to make a formidable team of inaction. The dynamic duo of decisions made by omission versus commission.

The Peter Principle in action

The following speech is one more piece of evidence that Secretary of Defense Gates has gotten to his position through the workings of the Peter Principle. For the uninitiated the Peter Principle states that "in a hierarchically structured administration, people tend to be promoted up to their "level of incompetence."

Speech given by Gates to future military leaders at West Point

The quote below is taken from a speech that Secretary of Defense Gates gave at the United States Military Academy at West Point on February 25, 2011 ( The Gates audience was comprised of the future soldiers and leaders of the United States Army.

Some of these cadets may be deployed to Afghanistan, the Middle East, Africa or Iraq after graduation. If they graduate and are sent to combat zones prior to the withdrawal date that has conveniently been provided to the enemy by the Obama administration, is the stated opinion of Gates the message that the administration is trying to send to our fighting men and women?

It is in the first paragraph below, highlighted and in bold that the most egregious statement made by Gates in this speech appears.

In the closing, again bolded, is a sentence that contradicts the first one as I don't believe that he would tell his own son or his own daughter that the fight they might be entering is useless.

"... The need for heavy armor and firepower to survive, close with, and destroy the enemy will always be there, as veterans of Sadr City and Fallujah can no doubt attest. And one of the benefits of the drawdown in Iraq is the opportunity to conduct the kind of full-spectrum training – including mechanized combined arms exercises – that was neglected to meet the demands of the current wars. Looking ahead, though, in the competition for tight defense dollars within and between the services, the Army also must confront the reality that the most plausible, high-end scenarios for the U.S. military are primarily naval and air engagements – whether in Asia, the Persian Gulf, or elsewhere. The strategic rationale for swift-moving expeditionary forces, be they Army or Marines, airborne infantry or special operations, is self-evident given the likelihood of counterterrorism, rapid reaction, disaster response, or stability or security force assistance missions. But in my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should “have his head examined,” as General MacArthur so delicately put it..."

"... As some of you have heard me say before, you need to know that I feel personally responsible for each and every one of you, as if you were my own sons and daughters, for as long as I am Secretary of Defense that will remain true. My only prayer is that you serve with honor and return home safely. I personally thank you for your service from the bottom of my heart, I bid you farewell and ask God to bless every one of you."

From The Political Commentator written by Michael Haltman

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
Rate this post:
Rating: 10.0/10 (2 votes cast)
The need for some international guts in Libya!, 10.0 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

Don't leave yet! Add a comment below or check out these other great stories:


  1. cynicalobserverComment by cynicalobserver
    March 7, 2011 @ 2:41 pm

    The main thing is for the USA to stay completely out of it and unlike previous administrations, start being concerned about our safety in America from Mexican drug cartels, gangs, crime etc. It is a good idea to think about Americans for a change.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)
  2. lrgonComment by lrgon
    March 9, 2011 @ 9:59 am

    ” Colonel Gadhafi needs to step down from power and leave… It’s the right thing to do…” (ABC News —B.O.

    The “right thing to do” Mr.president is for the USA to mind it’s own business. Stop foreign aid to tyrants and bring our troops home from wars they aren’t ever going to be allowed to win.

    The writer intimates that Mr.Obama was promoted up the ladder due to his incompetence. Mr.Obama may be many things but incompetent he is not. He has persuaded the writer of this neocon leaning article to do exactly what Mr. Obama wants- to get the USA involved in another no-win war in the middle east that will continue to drain the country of her treasure. 

    The Political Commentator forgot to mention that only Congress was given the power to take the nation into war. Article I, section 8, has been largely forgotten by most congressmen except a few like Ron Paul who try to persuade his fellow congressmen to take their duties under the Constitution seriously and not  allow the country to drown in red ink by fighting other peope’s wars!

    The incompetence in mostly found in articles like the above who can’t  see that  Obama is manipulating America into widening this phony war on terrorism.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  3. The Political CommentatorComment by The Political Commentator
    March 9, 2011 @ 10:17 am

    “… who can’t  see that  Obama is manipulating America into widening this phony war on terrorism…”
    First I only now notice that the word cojones was taken out of the title by management and replaced by guts. I stand by the term cojones.
    I also stand by my comment that Mr. Obama and his minions reached the highest level of their incompetence, and that unfortunately the music stopped only when Obama reach the presidency.
    Finally Irgon calls the war on terror phony. As what can most likely be described as a classic lib, Irgon should remove his head from his a** (for the editors) and wake-up and smell the coffee.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  4. lrgonComment by lrgon
    March 9, 2011 @ 3:03 pm

    Sir, it’s you who should stop scratching your cojones long enough to take a look at the US Constitution and our disasterous foreign policy.

    Setting the principles of the Constitution down first
    That precious contract among the states that created the federal system, says that congress not the president, is the only branch of this republican form of government  given the power to take the nation to war. No such official declaration of war has been called for on the amorphous war known as the ”war on terrorism.”

    Terrorism is a style of fighting; a tactic of warfare. To wage a war against a tactic is ludicrous, since how are you supposed to win a war against a tactic?

    History of constitutional  principles ignored by Democrats and Republicans (Liberals and Conservatives) in Washington

    Korean war. Truman sent US troops to the Korean penninsula to fight a “police action.”
    His advisors placed our troops under UN directives and insured that the war would not be victorious for our side in the end, despite the superb military blow that General MacArthur dealt the communist forces. The victory at Inchon was scuttled by left wingers in Truman’s administration who preferred a divided Korea to a pro-American unified Korea under Singman Rhee. We’re still there and the “police action”  eats up our nation’s treasure to maintain troops there. North Korea aids terror organizations as does mainland China. The US government sells the North Korean communists heavy crude oil at a loss in order to bribe them from building nuclear armed missles.

    “Phony war on terrorism?” Yea, you bet it is when the US government via foreign aid programs and banking deals build up the very nations that sponsor the terrorist organizations!

    More phoniness
    We are in a supposed war on terrorism and our southern border is wide open to terrorists! Does it make sense to protect Iraq’s and Afghanistan’s border and leave ours wide open?

    More history of US foreign policy lunacy or is it something far more devious?

    The Vietnam war ended with our soldiers not allowed victory. The “peace” accords was loaded with betrayal by our “leaders.” In Paris, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger signed a treaty that allowed hundreds of thousands of  North Vietnamese troops to remain in South Vietnam! This devious design by Kissinger insured that once US troops pulled out the South Vietnamese government would collapse.

    In that war the Viet Cong were the equivalent of today’s terrorists. The VC used similar tactics as al-Qaeda, the PLO and Hamas, Hezbolla and the Taliban do today. Yet our own president G.W. Bush used his power to give the Palestinian Authority millions of US tax dollars and Obama has followed suit with aid to the heirs of Yasser Arafat’s deadly PLO! 

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

Leave a Comment

Fresh Ink Archives

  • November 2015
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • Reference Pages

  • About
  • Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer