Fortress America might be a sensible approach now.
There is no expanding Japanese empire as in the 1930s. There is no Germany seeking "lebensraum". There is simply a local dictator in Libya, and there is opposition. Both the ins and the outs want control of their share of the oil revenue. Are the outs "better" than the "ins"? Who is to say? The U. S. has no dog in this fight.
It would be enough to say to both sides that if either one commits atrocities, then the U. S. and its allies will put boots on the ground and find and prosecute the perps.
It may not have occurred to the Peace Prize President that such a threat might have forestalled the violence that he claimed required the use of American force.
Remember that Reagan ingloriously pulled out of Lebanon when all those Marines were blown up in their barracks. His reputation easily survived that embarrassment. As for Reagan, so for Obama. War is bad for children and other living things. Stopping NATO's aggression in Libya would be the right thing. If atrocities incite the American people to support an invading force, then Congress can so authorize, and a Blackhawk down-type setback will not in that case force a retreat.
As with Libya, so with Pak-ghanistan. Peace is the default, best answer. When in doubt, don't bomb. It's hard to kill innocent people from the air when you're peacefully putting your full energies to improving the US of A at home, where we live and need better times.
It's time to build, and rebuild, more shining cities on more hills at home rather than killing Muslims abroad.
Copyright (C) Long Lake LLC 2011