Sweethearts Candy Blog's

I supported the war in Afghanistan:  we were attacked from there by Osama Bin Laden and his Taliban hosts.  Our attackers needed to pay for their evil deeds.  I just wanted them dead, I never wanted to turn them into democrats.  Nation-building is too expensive in terms of both money and American blood.

I was puzzled and less than lukewarm by the decision to invade Iraq, as I didn't see any compelling need for it.  (Once in, however, I supported and continue to support our troops and their mission.)

However, I have been against the intervention in Libya from the start, and for these reasons:
1.  It isn't our fight.  I don't see that there is anything to gain for American interests.
2.  We don't know who the players are or what they represent.  We don't know if they rebels are better, the same or worse than the dictator they seek to overthrow.  Talk about "democracy" is likely to just be propaganda and not a firm basis for our intervention.
3.  We have no clear-cut role or mission.  What exactly are we trying to accomplish there?  How do we know when we're finished?
4.  If the rebels cannot defeat Gaddafi by themselves, we will be pressured to commit troops.  If we don't commit the troops and the rebels lose, Gaddafi will be out for revenge and a large massacre of the rebels will follow (like what happened following the first Iraq war when we abandoned those who had relied on us).
5.  If the rebels cannot win on their own and we do not commit troops, the rebels will be defeated and it will be a major propaganda coup for Gaddafi and militant Islam.  They can brag that they defeated a western-backed force.
6.  If we do commit troops, there will be more American deaths and billions more spent on war.  Libya isn't worth the price.

In short, we have very little to gain and a lot to lose.  I am all for a long-term plan for disempowering militant Islam (pardon the redundancy), for isolating Muslim nations from the west and taking away their economic power (through energy independence), and for separating the civilized world from the barbaric, so the latter cannot harm us further.  This plan would probably include military action in certain circumstances, but we should choose our fights carefully.  The Libyan intervention is not one of these.

See report linked from Drudge here.

I had a long discussion with another reader over at The Other McCain about the wisdom of intervening in the civil war in Libya.  I am against intervention.  After years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, I see no compelling reason to intervene -- absolutely not with boots on the ground, and not even with military or humanitarian aid to the rebels.  Why should we help people who hate our guts?  The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

Michael J. Totten makes the case for non-intervention in yesterday's New York Post.  He writes:

Last time Americans led a coalition to topple a mass-murdering dictatorship in the Middle East, the Arab League and the Arabic press hysterically denounced us as imperialist crusaders fighting a war for oil and Israel. Egged on by al-Jazeera, they cheerleaded the "resistance" that killed thousands of our soldiers with roadside bombs in the years that followed.

Of course, that operation was a full-scale invasion, not merely the offering of military supplies and advice.  I am against even the latter, for fear that it would come back to bite us.  We offer aid to the rebels, who are weak and disorganized, and who will be beaten -- and then give Kaddafi a great propaganda coup that he defeated an American-backed military force.  No thanks.

But shouldn't we try to "win the hearts and minds" of the Arabic world?  What, do you live in Fantasy Land?  Nothing we can do will change the minds of Islamists whose religion commands them to hate us and to kill us. Totten says, instead of us trying to "win the hearts and minds" of the Arabs, they can damn well try to win our hearts and minds for a change.   He writes:

Americans fret constantly about whether or not we're doing the right thing to win the hearts and minds of the Arabs. That's one reason Obama was elected (though I can't help but wonder how many Libyans wish John McCain were in the White House right now). This may be a good time for Arab leaders and opinion makers to ask themselves what they can do to win over the hearts and minds of Americans.

They might find that if they treated us more like the Kurds do, more of us will be willing to help them in the future -- rather than shun them as hostiles who deserve to be left to their fate.

Read it all here.  Hat tip View From the Right.

The turmoil in the Middle East is interesting, even entertaining.  From one Muslim country to another, from Tunisia to Egypt to Libya to Bahrain to Iran, people are taking to the streets to denounce their dictators and demand new leadership.

The existing regimes have fought back and killed some of the demonstrators.  It's nasty over there.  However, the question remains:  what do the demonstrators really want?  Do they want more sharia law?  More mullahs micromanaging their personal lives to conform them more closely to Islam?  Or do they want "democracy," free elections and greater personal liberty?  It's really hard to say.

My personal gut feeling is that the people are greatly annoyed by the poor economy, the lack of jobs and the price of housing, food and other living essentials.  No doubt, it is annoying to see gold-plated dictators enjoying fantastic wealth while common citizens go without basic essentials.

These countries do not enjoy a liberal (liberal in the good sense) tradition, but a very illiberal one; so the people do not have a mental model of the society they seek.  They want change, but are not clear on what that change will entail.  It is likely that fanatical Muslim organizations will take advantage of the turmoil to fill the vacuum left by the fleeing dictators.  The end result will likely be less freedom, not more.  But we can always hope.

Egyptian Unrest

Lots of people are rioting, demonstrating, yelling, screaming, throwing and breaking things in Egypt.  Photos show lots of people in the streets, amidst clouds of tear gas and smoke.  I have searched the internet for information, but I still don't have a clue:  what are the demonstrations all about?  What do the Egyptian protesters want?  Do they even know themselves?

I glean from the jumble of half facts available, that the Egyptians (and Tunisians) became fed up with the dictators for life who rule their countries with the proverbial iron hand.  They want fair and free elections and a government that is accountable.  That sounds great, which is why I don't trust it as accurate analysis.

Maybe the Egyptians, like the Iranians in 1979, simply want a stronger Islamic government, more Sharia law, more intolerance to Christians, Jews and others, more scimitars, turbans, burqas and beards, more screaming fanatics, more chopped-off limbs and heads, more public stonings and hangings, more hate and rage, until the country is awash in adrenaline, B.O., bodies and blood.

I really hope that Egyptians and Tunisians are simply sick of the suffocation of the human spirit by tyrants, whether of the religious or the secular variety.  I'd like to see their societies become more open, more tolerant, less violent and less batshit crazy.  But will they?  I'm not holding my breath.