iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Chris Matthews

Chris Matthews

Posted: March 22, 2011 06:47 PM

What's the Real Mission In Libya?


What is the real mission in Libya? Not the no-fly zone-- that's a method. So what is the mission? How do we end this thing?

The president said in Santiago yesterday that the military mission isn't aimed at getting rid of Gaddafi. He said we have other means to do that-sanctions and money freezes and that stuff.

Well, excuse me for being skeptical, Mr. President, but we've done all that before and regimes have survived it for years-many years. I remember how many years we had white-ruled Rhodesia under sanctions. When I was over there in the Peace Corps, I went to that country, it meant watching old movies instead of ones currently available in other countries. No, it really didn't really work all that fast.

Americans don't like long wars. Are we going to be backing this military campaign in Libya for months or even years-with the French and the Brits and a token Arab force flying overhead while Gaddafi kills his people in alleys and basements below? Are we going to wait for --excuse me -- sanctions to work their will?

It doesn't ring true. We went in there to stop a killer from massacring his people. If he's set on doing it, he's got plenty of time now to find ways of doing it -- if all we're doing is running sanctions against him.

So, we need to know more. Perhaps there's a secret plan out there to overthrow Gaddafi. Are we offering him safe-conduct to Venezuela? Are we giving him a means to end this standoff?

Because if we're not doing any of this, it promises to be a long war, a standoff, where Gaddafi sacrifices more and more of his people to prolong his own rule, which he needs to prolong if he's going to prolong his own life.

I hope we have a plan here we're not talking about, because what we're seeing makes no sense. We say we want to overthrow Gaddafi again but give him no place to escape. If that's the nature of this contest, he will fight to the death --- as most people would -- and that will mean the deaths of countless people who would survive if we had a quicker, smarter plan that promised a quicker, smarter ending to this thing.

I don't like the looks of this campaign for the simple reason it looks like so many others. In an effort to reduce our footprint, we're making it a far longer, more bloody journey to where we're headed in the end.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 194
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nenitaB
Not the talk. What good result would it hav
11:56 AM on 03/30/2011
I'm not really sure this war on Libya would bring good and more benefits the US and it's people. We hope it does otherwise another not so wise move,to say , If the outcome not so favorable , not only America but the rest of the world will be affected and take the burden. Let's hope it doesn't lead to that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sam1jere
Open-minded, sports lover, Red
09:19 AM on 03/24/2011
If peace is an interlude between wars, then there is actually no game plan when it comes to campaigns like Libya (Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, etc) It's all meaningless at the end, with this particular one looking quite aimless. It resembles an unprovoked playground fight more than anything else.

Why make this conflict as difficult as possible by placing Gadaffi in a position of being cornered? He knows it's flight (limited options) or fight. It's not hard to guess which option he'd pick. The problem is he's more of a suicide bomber and will aim to go down with as many people as possible, and sadly so.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Whistlejackett
Hey stop doing that
06:12 AM on 03/24/2011
Good questions Chris. The US found fame and fortune in the development of a modern war machine. The American military has always been feared and envied, by many but not all. Your neighbour to the north, Canada, still refuses to allow US nuclear weaponry to enter her waters. The US war machine still found itself to be the master and controller of most major conflicts, and seldom behaved or looked like an ally to any other nation, but at great cost.

Going it alone became the American way, and it was very profitable. The USSR collapsed trying to compete, and as we know today, all nations are susceptible to collapse. Self determination can implode on itself, even if technology appears to save the day. The US military is doing just that, imploding under the pressure of expansionism.

The idea that it is the fault of other less involved nations, that this uniquely American problem is to be blamed is very unfortunate and wrongly placed. There isn't one nation that can help the US war machine to continue to be a viable and self reliant giant that it is. Who can save it? The world can only watch as it does, and hope that all concerned can soften the inevitable free fall landing, back to reality. Your questions Chris, need to be directed and resolved as an internally and sovereign set of issues. Welcome back to the fold. The US will be a great ally again.
05:18 AM on 03/24/2011
Thank you Chris you are 100% correct and then some...
01:06 AM on 03/24/2011
I agree fully. All the other dictators from Haiti on were allowed to negotiate an exit strategy that allowed them to maintain their dignity. I am not a fan of this man but he should be afforded the same option. All those nations like Germany, Russia, China, and those in South America should have enough integrity to make their support a reality and not a rhetorical one. Offer this man and his family a place to go. The protesters even said they do not want him killed so give him an alternative to a martyr's fate.
11:28 PM on 03/23/2011
Thank you Mr. Mathews for your post. As much as I respect you and your opinion, I think that there is no easy simple way to overthrow a man like Ghaddafi, I feel it will be easier than iraq because the people want change, the people in iraq was not willing to fight for their own freedom, the people in Libya want change. i think the leaders want to continue with the dictatorship and the people are tired of suffering while leaders every where enjoy all the profits. I wonder what the plight here will be when we the people really get fed up.
10:00 PM on 03/23/2011
I agree with the quick military action, as Gadhafi was about to butcher thousands of his own people in the streets. There can be no resolution to this crisis until Gadhafi is permenantly removed from power, and indeed his own country. We have satellite technolgy, obviously Gadhafi's paid mercenaries were amassed at the outskirts of Misrata and Benghazi. There was no time for a congressional vote, as our current politicians are in need of public posturing and showmanship.

Like it or not, we are the world's policeman. We can never just idly stand by and watch genocide and massacres. We should stand up for those that cannot defend themselves against brutal dictatorships and murderous thugs. We, as the world's leading democracy and republic, have a moral obligation to defend the defenseless, protect the unprotected, to stand up against flagrant brutality. I support President Obama and our military servicemen and women.

The objective is clear. Take Gadhafi out, either by boat, plane, or casket. France and/or Nato can take over once that objective is reached. One of these days, a Gadhafi type figure will have possession of nuclear weapons.....then, it's too late.
07:06 PM on 03/23/2011
Saddam Hussein promised the "mother of all wars," but it didn't materialize. He got caught hiding under somebody's house or in a cellar, right? Mubarak insisted to the end that he wasn't stepping down, but he hit the road right after a speech in which he made this promise. We'll see how "defiant" Gaddafi really is. Is he really paying mercenaries $1,000 a day? Gaddafi is an old guy like me and apparently is as lost as I am. Sterling Greenwood/AspenFreePress
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Deacon2
Namaste y'all
06:17 PM on 03/23/2011
The last true Mission was and should have remained the offensive against Al Qaeda and Bin Laden in Afgan. following 9/11. We should have persisted in that Mission as world opinion and much of the Arab world supported our effort. Instead, Bush arrogantly rushed into Iraq, leaving the Northern Alliance to finish the job. They took the US funding and left the Taliban to regroup. So, we are back in Afgan., but without a true Mission. Both Admins. are at fault, and have perpetrated a continuing failed foreign policy.
05:28 PM on 03/23/2011
Hmm. I seem to remember that there is a rebel movement, following a successful rebel movement in Egypt, to remove him one way or another. Did I miss that piece of your argument?
photo
Kachina Lively
Seeking Truth in all things
04:09 PM on 03/23/2011
I do not understand why The UN is not paying for the use of American support! I do not understand why The Arab League does not take care of their own affairs! God knows they have the money & weapons to do so! I do not understand why Obama did not bring this to the Congress, first! I do not understand how the UN has the power over our President! It's frightening! Yes, there is more going on than we know behind closed doors & all we The People can do is, eat it! I hate it! My biggest fear is one day my children & grandchildren will hate me for giving them life. Uncle Sam has turned against his own.
04:05 PM on 03/23/2011
The real mission was to use some outdated tomahawks that were gathering cobwebs.,get our pilots some exercise,and make sure we show another third world power just how "bad" we are.
03:58 PM on 03/23/2011
I agree with Mr. Matthews. We weren't supposed to pay for the Iraq War.Thanks to Bush and his crew our economy is a wreck and the Government is broke.

Thanks George
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dmpolis
Dedicated to truth ,justice and the American way
03:48 PM on 03/23/2011
Dear Chris, I used to watch you all the time but lately you sound more like a Republican. Why not ask the UN security council how far this will go. In contrast to the invasion of Iraq this was done with a plan and a real coalition. If we had done this before invading Iraq we might not have been in a never ending cycle of war. I support Obama and will vote for him in 2012.
03:56 PM on 03/23/2011
What does this have to do with Chris Matthews' perfectly legitimate questioning of yet another war being paid for in blood and treasure by Americans. What IS the exit strategy? As left as one is, there is no need to attack a commentator who is raising valid questions.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
gladys46
Know Your Interests, Vote
04:06 PM on 03/23/2011
What American "blood" do you refer to? There is no republican support for cutting military spending is there? That treasure is loaded isn't it!!! Are those "vaild" statements?
03:43 PM on 03/23/2011
For God's sake. Will Americans ever be able to mind their own business?!