I know it’s tedious to bang on and on about this but it does seem quite important that we have some idea of what we’re actually trying to achieve in Libya. Until we have a goal it seems most unlikely that we can have a coherent strategy. At present no-one seems to know what the goal is and the Americans are busy contradicting one another.
For instance, here’s Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff insisting, again, that the operation is strictly limited: “The goals are limited. It’s not about seeing him go.” And here’s National Journal’s Marc Ambinder, quoting an administration official who says “We have multiple scenarios but none of them end with Qadaffi in power.”
Now Mullen probably outranks Ambinder’s source but Ambinder is well-connected and reliable and since his source is not toeing the party line I’m inclined to give more weight to him (or her) than to public blandishments designed to reassure everyone that there’s no possibility of mission creep when, quite plainly, there is and, anyway, the US is more heavily-involved than it likes to pretend is the case.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in