"To attack him (Gaddafi) without destroying his regime is to ask for increased terrorism against Americans and America’s allies. So is replacing him with insurgents who include other sponsors of terrorism.
"The most charitable explanation for President Obama’s incoherent policy in Libya — if incoherence can be called a policy — is that he suffers from the longstanding blind spot of the Left when it comes to the use of force. A less charitable and more likely explanation is that Obama is treating the war in Libya as he treats all sorts of other things, as actions designed above all to serve his own political interests and ideological visions.
"As for the national interest of the United States of America, Barack Obama has never shown any great concern about that."I don't know what Obama's up to in Libya, or what the end game is, but I am never terribly opposed to removing a despot like Gaddafi, the rottenness of the replacements be damned. But as I posted previously, we run a great risk here of losing (and, if the rebels don't succeed in taking out Gaddafi, we lose), and an even greater risk of winning (where the rebels actually turn out to be Islamists and turn Libya into another terrorist-sponsoring Islamic state, as opposed to Gaddafi's mad-man terror sponsoring).
The real problem with what we're doing in Libya is...no one really knows what we're doing in Libya. I can see it at the Bam White House:
Advisor 1: They're all saying we must do something about Gaddafi.
Bam: Well then, do something.
And that's just it, we're doing something, but no one knows what it is.