France Strikes Libya; U.S. Prepared to Launch Missile Attack

by the Left Coast Rebel

I awoke this morning to news reels spinning with images of a downed fighter jet in Libya. Shot straight out of the sky, one can clearly see the pilot eject as the fighter jet explodes into a giant fireball, smashing into the ground. As I wiped the sleep from my eyes, I didn't know if it was a coalition war plane or Libyan and the context involved.

It was Qadaffi's:

Things moved quickly in Libya overnight with France launching the initial strike and America prepping for a missile launch as well. Just what we need right now, another war, right?

The New York Times is reporting:

PARIS — American, European and Arab leaders began the largest international military intervention in the Arab world since the invasion of Iraq on Saturday, in an effort to stop Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s war on the Libyan opposition.

Leaders meeting in Paris on Saturday afternoon said direct strikes against Libyan government forces, as approved by the United Nations Security Council on Thursday, would begin within hours. And President Nicolas Sarkozy said French warplanes had already begun enforcing a no-fly zone in Libya, conducting reconnaissance missions and preparing to intercept any Libyan military aircraft.

Despite an ultimatum from Western powers demanding that Colonel Qaddafi keep a cease-fire, reports of heavy bombardment and fighting came from the main rebel-held city in eastern Libya, Benghazi. Witnesses there reported heavy artillery strikes and that government tanks and ground troops were moving throughout the city. And a steady stream of vehicles, some bearing rebel flags, was seen pouring out to the east.

American involvement in Qadaffi's mess -- in my opinion -- should be in providing the 15,000-pound "Daisy Cutter" bomb to blow his palace (or tent) to smithereens. Should American lives be put at risk in the region? No way, but they will be anyway.

Even the New York Times now is acknowledging Obama's mismanagement of the (multiple) crises in the Middle East:

WASHINGTON — In a Paris hotel room on Monday night, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton found herself juggling the inconsistencies of American foreign policy in a turbulent Middle East. She criticized the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates for sending troops to quash protests in Bahrain even as she pressed him to send planes to intervene in Libya.

Only the day before, Mrs. Clinton — along with her boss, President Obama — was a skeptic on whether the United States should take military action in Libya. But that night, with Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces turning back the rebellion that threatened his rule, Mrs. Clinton changed course, forming an unlikely alliance with a handful of top administration aides who had been arguing for intervention.

Within hours, Mrs. Clinton and the aides had convinced Mr. Obama that the United States had to act, and the president ordered up military plans, which Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, hand-delivered to the White House the next day. On Thursday, during an hour-and-a -half meeting, Mr. Obama signed off on allowing American pilots to join Europeans and Arabs in military strikes against the Libyan government.

Dissapointed, but obviously still smitten, Colonel Qadaffi sends a message to "his son", Barack Hussein Obama:

(TOI) — Calling Barack Obama as “our son”, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi sent a message to the US President defending his decision to attack the rebels fighting to overthrow him.

Gaddafi (68) also wrote a letter to the French and British leaders, and the UN Secretary General, saying the Security Council resolution was “void” and violated the UN charter, warning them that they would “regret” any intervention. . . .

Details of Gaddafi’s letters were released by the Libyan government spokesman at a news conference in Tripoli.

Defending his decision to attack rebel cities, Gaddafi told Obama, “Al-Qaida is an armed organisation, passing through Algeria, Mauritania and Mali. What would you do if you found them controlling American cities with the power of weapons? What would you do, so I can follow your example.”

Trying to strike a personal note, Gaddafi prefaced his letter saying, “To our son, his excellency, Mr Barack Hussein Obama. I have said to you before, that even if Libya and the United States of America enter into a war, god forbid, you will always remain a son. Your picture will not be changed.”

In his letter to Nikolas Sarkozy, David Cameron and Ban Ki Moon, Gaddafi said, “Libya is not yours, Libya is for the Libyans. The security council, their resolution is void because it is not according to the charter to interfere with the internal affairs of the country.”

You have no right. You will regret if you get involved in this, our country. We can never shoot a single bullet on our people, it is al-Qaida organisation.”

What a world. Obama dithering; France taking the lead; Qadaffi calling Obama his "son" as America prepares for another war; the United Nations (of all entities) essentially declaring war; Japan reeling from the worst disaster since WWII; the American Federal government spending $4 billion in debt per diam...

One positive note I can think of from the Libyan situation: I can't wait to see pictures of Qadaffi's dead, bloated corpse, à la Uday and Qusay Hussein in 2003.

More libertarian and conservative perspectives on the developing story in Libya and the ramifications, political and otherwise:

• "Questions About Libya" at Pundit and Pundette,

• "Hillary Will be the Fall Guy if Things go Badly in Libya" at Legal Insurrection,

• "Libya and the Interventionists" at the Humble Libertarian,

• "Libya: Is War Imminent" at Rational Nation

• "Middle East Turmoil Messes up Progressive Foreign Policy" at American Power.

Cross-posted to LCR.