I just had a conversation with a friend of mine who has some interesting thoughts on the subject of Libya. This whole Libya thing is a bit of a political issue now, with many in congress wishing to hold President Obama accountable for continued military action against that pathetic nation state. Anyway, my friend believes that the continued action against Qaddafy (or however it is spelled) and Co. is OK and things should be left well enough alone. Not sure I agreed there but I wanted to hear him out on the subject and he, being a very opinionated (and often misinformed) sort, was happy to oblige.
He tends to believe that the folk that are being bombed are (were?) terrorists and terrorist sympathizers in the past. He further believes that these folk deserve to be bombed for the "sins of the past." I asked him about the possibility that the opposing "freedom fighters" may be of a jihadist sort and perhaps we would be just trading one known evil for an unknown evil. His ready answer was that all of them should be bombed indiscriminately if for no other reason than to keep NATO forces training up to par.
I don't have a lot of sympathy with Mohammedans in the region. I, rightly or wrongly, hold them at least somewhat accountable for Sept 11, 2001. The world would certainly be a better place without Qaddafiy, but I am just not sure continued action there is warranted at this time.
Let them fight it out amongst themselves. We can, after all, reserve the right to resume military action in the future should it be deemed necessary. The place is not really worth the life of one Western service member.