Mission: Incomprehensible

Our surreal war in Libya has everybody talking. Here’s Mark Steyn:

According to the New York Times, “Members of the NATO alliance have sternly warned the rebels in Libya not to attack civilians as they push against the regime of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.’ We dropped bombs on Qaddafi’s crowd for attacking civilians, and we’re prepared to do the same to you! “The coalition has told the rebels that the fog of war will not shield them from possible bombardment by NATO planes and missiles, just as the regime’s forces have been punished.’

So, having agreed to be the Libyan Liberation Movement Air Force, we’re also happy to serve as the Qaddafi Last-Stand Air Force. Say what you like about Barack Obama, but it’s rare to find a leader so impeccably multilateralist he’s willing to participate in both sides of a war. It doesn’t exactly do much for holding it under budget, but it does ensure that for once we’ve got a sporting chance of coming out on the winning side.

RTWT here.

4 Comments

  1. Heeeey! What was wrong with “inscrutable”? It certainly had the same rhythm as “impossible.”

    Posted April 2, 2011 at 3:14 pm | Permalink
  2. Malcolm says

    If you must know, I liked “Mission: Inscrutable” (the original title of this post) so much that I checked to see if anyone else had come up with it lately. So many had (it is just about impossible to come up with an original idea) that I decided, sadly, to change it.

    By the way, that was pretty fast. Do you have an email subscription here? (I wasn’t even sure that was possible.)

    If so, do you get pinged every time I edit an already-published post? That must get annoying.

    Posted April 2, 2011 at 3:22 pm | Permalink
  3. JK says

    Keep in mind, our $369M/6 day’s cost for the Libyan farce, er, “force” should be going down – and pretty soon.

    Sending the CIA guys in to figure out which side we support should’ve been cheaper than sending TLAMs and TASMs in (types of Tomahawk missiles, “land attack” and “anti-ship”) should probably remove the requirement for the two SSBNs too.

    Now that we’re both for and against “either/or” targeting should be easier – no Naval requirement whatsoever. Come to think of it – no need for CIA either.

    I’ve said it elsewhere, but won’t here because this is a family friendly site – but this is very rapidly turning into what I described to an e-pal, “The Mother Of All Cluster-Something or Others.”

    Somebody at either Foggy Bottom or the White House better tell the National Park Service to turn on the irrigation sprinklers wherever an old-time Foreign Service type might be buried. The underground spinning is likely to end in a conflagration.

    Posted April 2, 2011 at 4:03 pm | Permalink
  4. I follow a list of my favorite bloggers on a feed that’s visible in my Blogger edit window; since I use tabbed browsing, I keep that window open and hit “refresh” a lot. The feed doesn’t show any updates if the blogger in question has simply updated the post’s content, but since a retitling can often mean a change in a post’s URL, that shows up as an update.

    Timing’s important, too: had I been away from my computer for a few hours at the time of your title change, I might not even have noticed the alteration.

    Posted April 2, 2011 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*