search
top

Firing Missiles

I’m amused by the picture CNN chose of the missile attack on Libya. The USS Barry. Of course, it’s named after this Barry, rather than our warmongering, baby murdering President, but I thought the symbolism there was rich.

I should note that I actually think O-bomb-a is doing the right thing, finally. I just said the warmongering, baby murdering line because I had to listen to the left say it about Bush for 8 years, and it felt good. As much as many were egging Obama to do something, letting the Europeans take the lead on this maybe be a good thing in the long run. When you treat other countries like children and make them dependent on your security guarantee, it can’t be too surprising when they act like children and piss all over you for looking out for them. It’s probably better for the United States in the long run if the Europeans have to take responsibility for their own security, and pitch-in to make the world a safe place to keep traveling around in petroleum sucking cars and jet aircraft for Democracy.

17 Responses to “Firing Missiles”

  1. Stacy says:

    The interesting question now is, how does the old Entente do in its first outing since 1918, and how do we feel seeing that they can actually fly their own jets and drop their own bombs with nary a US troop in the ranks.

    Fearless prediction: the leftwing isolationists redirect some of their ire at Sarkozy while cognitive-dissonantly saying “see, we told you the US doesn’t need to police the world”, while paleocons go apoplectic predicting a return to the geopolitical conditions of 1935.

  2. Robb Allen says:

    I’m still not sure who we’re helping out here. I’m not convinced the rebels are just ordinary citizens finally fed up with being brutalized.

    My opinion is that we figure out what city Quacky is in, carpet bomb it, carpet bomb the rubble, then bomb the dust and leave.

    I got tired of nation building a while back.

  3. Navy Veteran says:

    This USS Barry which recently launched all those Tomahawk missiles toward Libya, at 60 grand a pop I might add, must be a new edition of a previous USN destroyer by the same name.

    The USS Barry (DD-933), which the Wikipedia link is provided for in the above blog entry, was decommissioned in 1982. This particular USS Barry has since been serving as a museum attraction, complete with guided tours by USN personnel, at the Washington Navy Yard for about the last 25 years. I also know about this USS Barry very very well from my own personal USN service during the 1990’s.

  4. Sebastian says:

    Linked the wrong version of the ship on Wikipedia. I have corrected the error.

  5. Ian Argent says:

    I used to pick my mother up from work within sight of the USS Barry tied up alongside in the Anacostia Navy Yard. Never went aboard the ship, though.

    I’ll say this is the right thing, as well. The Colonel of Libya is an avowed anti-american whose (irregular) forces have killed american civilians and uniformed personnel; the country sits adjacent to an important Sea Line of Communication (the Med), and, quite frankly, we’ve got enough economic issues without another oil shock.

  6. Chirol says:

    Obama is violating the constitution as he cannot declare war without congress which is exactly what this is. It’s funny to hear people so hellbent (and rightly so) on protecting civil rights and the constitution and then happy to toss it in order to indulge in more imperialist adventures abroad. Qadaffi is an evil sob and deserves to be tortured and shot by his own people and dragged through the streets. This isn’t our business.

  7. Ian Argent says:

    FWIW, apparently the US never declared war in the First Barbary War (“To the Shores of Tripoli” &c); though there was a congressional authorization of force.

    At any rate, flipping a couple of tomahawks at surface targets isn’t war. I’m not sure sending over elements of a carrier air wing to crater runways would rise that either. Landing a MEU would be; but that doesn’t seem to be in the cards

  8. Jake says:

    At any rate, flipping a couple of tomahawks at surface targets isn’t war.

    It is certainly an act of war – an attack on a sovereign foreign nation that has neither attacked nor threatened us. It is not a defensive action by any stretch of the imagination.

    Our Glorious Reader should have at least gotten Congressional authorization before pulling the trigger, if not an outright declaration of war. I certainly don’t recall anything in the Constitution granting the UN the power to authorize US military action.

  9. Sage Thrasher says:

    Libyan refugees will be swarming into Spain, Italy & France, not the U.S. I agree it’s more Europe’s problem than ours & agree with your comments that it’s past time to prod them to be adults again. That said, the worldwide connections between Qaddafi, Chavez, Al-Qaeda, the FARC & various other terrorist & drug dealers franchises mean that an attack on any is an attack on all, and good all around.

  10. Ian Argent says:

    So what was your opinion of Reagan sending bombers to attack in 1986?

  11. Ian Argent says:

    Also, as I pointed out, Libya has in fact attacked americans both civilian and military.

  12. Jake says:

    So what was your opinion of Reagan sending bombers to attack in 1986?

    Being only 9 years old, I didn’t have an opinion. Looking back, I would say the same thing – it was justified, but that he should have gotten an AUMF from Congress. It’s not like it was an emergency that required urgent and immediate action for the protection of the US.

    Also, as I pointed out, Libya has in fact attacked americans both civilian and military.

    Again, I’m not saying it’s not justified, just that it is an act of war and that there are proper ways to go about it.

  13. Ian Argent says:

    Fair enough. In both cases, the president faced (faces) a hostile congress that may block the needful activity for partizan reasons. As CinC, he does have some unilateral military powers.

  14. Jake says:

    the president faced (faces) a hostile congress that may block the needful activity for partizan reasons. As CinC, he does have some unilateral military powers.

    True, though I don’t believe they extend that far. And here’s some delicious irony, he didn’t either, before he was President:

    The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

    [Barak Obama, written response to a series of questions regarding executive power from Charlie Savage, then of The Boston Globe, published December 20, 2007]

  15. Patriot Henry says:

    “I should note that I actually think O-bomb-a is doing the right thing, finally. ”

    This is the right thing? Any other nations you want to waste our resources on? Maybe Iran, heck we can probably bomb all of Africa cuz who cares, and maybe we can kill some kids in those -stan countries?

  16. Sebastian says:

    Unless you live some odd life where you don’t need oil, it may be necessary to fight wars in those places.

  17. Ian Argent says:

    @Jake: Fair enough.

    I cut the guy a little bit of slack for changing his mind after becoming president and having access to more info. OTOH, I am not thrilled by his wishy-washy ways once in the office, nor his desire to have it all ways. He’s a concensus-maker, not a decider, and that is showing in all areas of his presidency, including this one. The US Constitution allows for a strong presidency, and he isn’t doing it.

    That having been said, his continuing disengagement from Congress is worrisome.

top