Okay, let me get it out of the way. I told you so!
Ck it out:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42657450/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
Anyone paying attention to history knew this would happen unless we were willing to let the Libyan rebels be annihilated. This is no Viet Nam but there are interesting parallels. The first military 'boots on the ground' were sent as 'advisers'. The South Viet Nam army needed more than advisers. So do the Libyan rebels.
How long will it be before the NATO military advisers have to start shooting back? How long will it be before we have to send in more troops to protect the advisers?
This is what ALWAYS happens when a country wants to participate in a war but not in a way geared toward actually winning it. Limited engagement is a formula for failure. As an ex-military man I hate that approach to war. It always means a bigger and longer engagement than it would have been if we'd gone in to win. And it'll mean more deaths than if we'd done it right ... for sure among Libyans but likely among NATO forces too.
No comments:
Post a Comment