NATO Insists America Keep A Combat Role in Libya - We're Stuck For Now

Our new "pals"; O.K. guys, who's Al Qaeda, who's the Muslim Brotherhood, and who's Thomas Jefferson?

NATO has taken over leadership of the Libyan War (sorry, Libyan Kinetic Military Action), but insists that the United States maintain a combat role. Well now, isn't that surprising?

I received some emails after my last post, concerned that I said we had to "win" now in Libya because leaving Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi in charge would open us up to decades of attacks by Libyan terrorists seeking revenge for this conflict. Perhaps I need to re-define "win."

To justify the risking of our troop's lives, there must be an endgame, an exit strategy, a purpose for their sacrifice. The only one that makes sense is to remove Gaddafi - who has committed terrorist acts against America in the past - and his leadership. We never should have becomed involved in this civil war, but we can't leave him in charge now that we have attacked him.

But once that happens, we should wave goodbye to Libya and hit the door. We simply cannot become involved in "nation building" again. Advise the good guys (if there are any), give them copies of our Constitution, sell them humanitarian aid (they can afford it), and buy their damned oil if they'll sell it to us.

Then, as our ships sail home, remind the new leaders that if anyone attacks us, we will turn whoever is responsible into dust....

Charles M. Grist
http://www.mylastwar.com/