WaPo Apparently Doesn’t Remember Who Was President in 2011

While they mention the NATO-assisted overthrow of Qaddafi, there is no mention of whose idea it was. In Libya, fears of full-blown civil war as fighting nears capital Tripoli.

A battle for control of Tripoli would mark the most significant escalation of violence in oil- and gas-rich Libya since the toppling of Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi in 2011 following a populist rebellion backed by NATO bombing

But Foreign Affairs (at least in 2015) wasn’t so forgetful.

On March 17, 2011, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973, spearheaded by the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama, authorizing military intervention in Libya. The goal, Obama explained, was to save the lives of peaceful, pro-democracy protesters who found themselves the target of a crackdown by Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi.

It didn’t work out that way.

In retrospect, Obama’s intervention in Libya was an abject failure, judged even by its own standards. Libya has not only failed to evolve into a democracy; it has devolved into a failed state. Violent deaths and other human rights abuses have increased severalfold. Rather than helping the United States combat terrorism, as Qaddafi did during his last decade in power, Libya now serves as a safe haven for militias affiliated with both al Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS).

Hat tip to Pirate’s Cove, who also links to the WaPo opinion pages where they seem to be lobbying for more intervention on the part of the US.

Let’s go to the NY Times opinion pages, where they are suddenly cool with American intervention. If they can bash Trump at the same time


No Boots on the Ground

Obama’s plan for dealing with ISIS sounds strangely like Donald Rumsfeld’s plan for waging war in Iraq all those years ago. No boots on the ground. Maybe it will work better this time.

So how did that no-boots-on-the-ground, no-fly-zone approach work in Libya? Not very well. (You know the manure has hit the rotating air-moving apparatus when the French think more military action is required. Just sayin’.)

And don’t the Dems think we need a UN mandate, or is that just too 20th Century?