Quagmire in the Desert

I hope not, but there is precedent for pessimism.

Over at the Althouse blog we have this little item on Feminism and Foreign Policy:

A feminist milestone:  Our male President has been pulled into war by 3 women.

It's the opposite of the Code Pink idea that women bring the peace.  How long have I heard this feminist plaint:  If only women had the power, we would have peace, not phallocratic war.

This is about Secretary of State Clinton, Deputy Nation Security Council member Samantha Powers and UN Ambassador Susan Rice getting together and urging President Obama to act with regard to Libya.

To again quote Professor Althouse, " Oh, timid men.  Step aside!  Yield to the boldness of women."

Over at The American Interest we have this thought from Commentator Walter Russell Mead on what he calls "Obama’s War":

And President Obama understands one thing that President Bush never quite did: that American power works best when others perceive us as reluctant rather than over-eager to act.   Getting the French and the British to take the lead won’t legitimize the military campaign in the eyes of Islamic militants, but letting others step out in front sometimes in not a bad thing for an American president to do.

Yet when it comes right down to it, this President’s approach is not all that different from the last administration’s on matters of peace and war.   Military assisted regime change as a solution to humanitarian abuses perpetrated by a government with a history of terrorism linked to a firm belief that more democracy in the Arab world will lead to a more stable region: this is much more Paul Wolfowitz than Colin Powell.

The writer includes this observation:  "I hope the Iranians are paying close attention, by the way.   This President is much more likely to pull the trigger than they may think."

But, I think the Althouse post started here, at Just One Minute, under this title, "To The Shores Of Tripoli Benghazi: Special "Days Not Weeks" Edition".  The post is a look at the coverage by The New York Times of our involvement in this imbroglio.  The title refers to the Administration's view that this little war will be over in a few days.  Splendid little war, maybe like Cuba, back in 1898. My buddy Juan has a plan for trying to bring that festering sore to an end.  I hope someone pays attention.

In the comments at JOM is the acronym AUMF, which stands for "Authorization for the Use of Military Force", which is "Inside Baseball" for the US Congress giving the President the authority to employ military forces.  I am no Constitutional Authority, but it would seem to me that it is a requirement.  I sure hope it is.  I don't agree with the idea that a United Nation Security Council authorization is a substitute for our following our Constitution and getting Congressional approval.  get the Congress on board as a way of getting the Citizenry on board!

The one thing working for the Libyan Rebels, and the UN authorized force, is what we might call Rommel's Disease—logistics.  Just as Rommel ran out of gas and working tanks as he got to Egypt, it is likely forces loyal to Colonel Gadaffi ran out of logistics in front of Ajdabiya.  Remember, "Amateurs do Strategy, professionals do Logistics."

Good luck to us.

Regards    Cliff