"Where are the carriers?" His post strikes me as a particularly damning indictment of the Obama administration's complete abdication of responsibility for the safety of American civilians in Libya.
In a previous thread, Belmont Club Commenters, thinking on the crisis in Libya and the possible need to cover an evacuation there asked, “where are the carriers”?
103. Cowboy — Here’s where they are:
CVN Enterprise: North Arabian Sea
CVN Vinson: North Arabian Sea
CVN Lincoln: Singapore
CVN Washington: Japan
CVN Stennis: San Diego
CVN Truman: Norfolk
CVN Reagan: Eastern Pacific
CVN Bush: Western AtlanticNo carrier group in the Med. … 105. Blast From the Past — Cowboy, That means that 3, the Nimitz, Roosevelt and Eisenhower, are in overhaul and can’t get underway. Another 4, the Stennis, Truman, Reagan and Bush are either undergoing training and preparing to deploy or are recently returned and awaiting an overhaul.
Meanwhile, Elliott Abrams notes the contrast between the Obama administration's reactive apprehension to China's show of power.
In recent days, the White House has been saying that the United States had to watch its words and actions because American citizens were at risk in Libya. So instead of acting, we are building a diplomatic coalition. China has taken a different tack: to use power. Instead of biting their tongue, the Chinese appear to be making it clear to the Qadhafi regime that no danger to Chinese workers will be tolerated.
That’s the path the United States should follow as well. As I’ve said elsewhere, we should be making it clear to Qadhafi and his remaining henchmen that the safety of Americans in Libya is their safety; if Americans are attacked or held hostage, they will end up the way Saddam Hussein did. But the use of power will do more than ensure the safety of Americans; it will also help bring Libya’s civil war to a better end.
The problem with the strategy offered by Mr Abrams is this. If Obama were to assume a more forceful posture toward Qadhafi and what's left of his regime, who would believe him? Is there anyone who thinks there's even the tiniest chance that he would ever back it up with the actual use of force?
In fact I would speculate that Obama's leftist ideology forbids any action on his part that might bring about "a better end" to Libya's civil war. Any action towards Libya that is perceived to benefit the United States would be "cultural imperialism" in his book. Better to let the cards fall where they may, even if the Libyan people are forced to suffer another 42 years of poverty, tyranny, and torture under a new dictator. Obama will keep his hands clean.
Comments