Right-Wingers Suddenly Skeptical of Bombing Middle Eastern Countries
So, I just got back from a really awesome pro-war demonstration called “A Gathering of Eagles” where myself and thousands of liberals cheered on the President’s invasion of Libya, and I noticed something strange: there doesn’t seem to be much support on the right for this latest opportunity to bomb Arabs.
For instance, Glenn “More Rubble Less Trouble” Reynolds, who famously spent years cheering on our victory in Iraq while spoiling for war with Iran, is worried that Obama doesn’t have as much foreign policy experience as George W. Bush had when he started bombing.
If we had elected a more competent President, we’d have fewer worries. But people got excited about Obama, and, well, this is what you get when you elect an inexperienced guy with no great interest — or any experience — in international relations.
Meanwhile, David Brooks, who wrote passionately in support of doubling-down on the Iraq War in 2003,
It is our responsibility to recognize the dark realities of human nature, while still preserving our idealistic faith in a better Middle East.
…now seems strangely plagued with self-doubt.
Is the coalition trying to depose Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi? Are coalition forces trying to halt Qaddafi’s advances or weaken his government? Would the coalition allow Qaddafi to win so long as he didn’t massacre more civilians? Is it trying to create a partitioned Libya? Are we there to help the democratic tide across the region?
John Bolton, who never saw a war he didn’t like, warned of a new Afghanistan Iraq Vietnam.
Bolton warned that Obama is leading the U.S. into a potential “quagmire” by not making ousting Qaddafi a top military priority.
We can’t expect much good to come from the Libyan War, except the good we dare not mention — the long-overdue end of the lunatic, American-murdering rule of Colonel Qaddafi.
Why do right-wingers hate the troops?