The more news that comes out about our current dealings with Libya, the more uncomfortable I become, and I am bordering on becoming angry. I really try hard not to be naive about things, but there are times when I prefer not knowing things until well after the fact. The fact that I am now reading breaking news stories about Obama sanctioned CIA covert actions in Libya bothers me. Though I have friends who believe otherwise, I just don't think that we need to be in Libya. I was not convinced that our national interests were being affected by the events in Libya (my apologies to the rebels who might have faced massacre without our intervention), as President Obama explained. I did not like that the end game is as nebulous as it has been in the other two wars that we currently are fighting.
Back in 2003, I argued that if we thought Saddam Hussein was so bad, then perhaps we should have assassinated him, and put in his place someone who met our national interests. That could have been a covert action. Of course there would have been risks involved, but perhaps war would not have been one of them, and certainly not the debacle we've witness for more than half a decade. I would have been comfortable with a similar tactic in Libya. It's no secret that much of the world thinks Qaddafi is mental, and certainly unfit to lead a nation. So why not take him out? Maybe this is the precursor to that type of action. But I don't want to know that, not now, or even in the near future.
Andrew Sullivan's words on this latest news resonated with me, and it is prudent to wait before articulating a more substantive position, but I needed at least to get what I've written off of my chest. I wonder what candidate Obama would have thought of the actions of President Obama.