Libya: Quick victory or long mess?

Drudge Report currently has quotes from both Presidents Bush and Obama posted from March 19th 2003, and March 19th 2011. The two are almost identical.

Bush: "American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger..."

Obama: "Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world..."

There are too many things wrong with this whole picture. First of all, why are the liberals all of a sudden such warhawks? I always find it interesting when Presidents launch military action when they themselves are under fire. Remember when Slick Willy launched Operation Desert Fox the friday evening right before he got impeached? After a month of wishy-washy non-committal soundbites about Libya and before that Egypt, Obama decides to embark on half-hearted military action. Obama has already said that at no point will any infantry or land troops be deployed there. I am not arguing that they should, but how will opposing forces take us seriously if we already are setting limits on our actions?

Another thing wrong with this whole ordeal is our role in general. Why are we letting the UK and France lead the way? Senator Lindsey Graham, a general softball player usually, just pointed out on Fox News: Sunday, that America has always enjoyed being the leader of the free world and should continue enjoying that role. The RINO is right.

But at the end of the day, we simply shouldn't be doing anything about this. As striking as the similarity of quotes from the Presidents is, one can't compare different situations across the board. Iraq was a threat to The United States. Libya is not. When Iraq kicked off we had a president committed to victory. Now we do not. When Iraq kicked off we were involved in only one other war in the middle-east. Now we are already involved in two.

It looks as if we're in this now though. Now that we're in it, we need to be in it to win. Either we get rid of Ghadafi, or pack up and come home.

At least the sailors got to have some fun and see something cool instead of sitting around playing poker and reading Penthouse all day.

From the Navy Times...

Report: Too many whites, men leading military

By Pauline Jelinek - The Associated Press
Posted : Monday Mar 7, 2011 15:09:55 EST

WASHINGTON — The U.S. military is too white and too male at the top and needs to change recruiting and promotion policies and lift its ban on women in combat, an independent report for Congress said Monday.

Seventy-seven percent of senior officers in the active-duty military are white, while only 8 percent are black, 5 percent are Hispanic and 16 percent are women, the report by an independent panel said, quoting data from September 2008....

Perhaps 50 or 60 years ago there was truly some serious discrimination going on in the military. However, today I really believe it to be one of the most color blind institutions in the country. If white males are at the top of the ladder, then white males must be earning those spots.

And sorry, if women are naive enough to think they can handle combat jobs, there are seriously misguided. The issue isn't their strength or skill sets, (although that certainly could be a question) the issue is the problems it would/will cause among the men. Putting a woman in the middle of nowhere in a group of majority men who haven't seen a woman not wearing a burka in months, isn't safe. Am I saying our servicemembers are rapists or predators? As a whole, no. However, there are scumbags in any walk of life, and to tempt fate is not a good idea.

Howbout the fights it would cause among the guys? I've seen what happens in a bar with a bunch of guys when one woman walks in. Stupidity reigns.

The military is no place for political correctness.