While there are certainly other things going on in the world, this headline seems worth at least a passing complaint:
Libya’s liberation: interim ruler unveils more radical than expected plans for Islamic law
While I worried when I read reports about al Qaida acquiring Stinger missiles (“the better to shoot down your passenger planes, my dear!”), I guess it was nice to see bloody pictures of the dead Gadhafi. But the dust seems to be settling, and I don’t like the dust.
The worst part is that my money went into it:
It took about eight months and cost the U.S. about $1.1 billion to achieve the Libyan rebels’ goal of toppling Col. Muammar Qaddafi.
So what did we get for that billion?
Another Islamist state? I’m sorry, but it sucks, and I wish I didn’t have to pay for it.
Little wonder Ron Paul’s kooky isolationism is resonating more than ever.
Comments
6 responses to “Why do we have to get what we pay for?”
I wish I could say I was surprised.
The problem with Libya didn’t just happen. It’s a continuing reflection of the West’s cowardice. How many years was Gadhafi given a pass? He trained and supported IRA terrorists, was responsible for the Locerbie terror, and who knows what else. Yet this country and all of Europe, but especially Great Britain, didn’t have the courage to wipe him out.
It wouldn’t matter now if an Islamist government came to power, if they had been made aware years ago that any act of aggression would result in a devastating response. From Reagan on, it’s been a “measured response” which encourages further terrorism.
I just watched Kevin Costner’s classic western Open Range. Costner and Robert Duvall abandoned everything in the middle of wilderness to mete out justice for a single murder. Their type of courageous response to unprovoked attack is the only solution. Our governments have failed repeatedly in defending us, and in the process have invited terrorism. All this nation building is folly. You can’t reform a murderer, or a nation of them.
Obama’s support of NATO intervention in Libya was unconstitutional and unwise. We had no national interest in overthrowing Gadhafi at this time. The time for that was years ago. All Obama and NATO accomplish at this late date is the radical Islamist government about to take over. But then I believe that is what Obama wants.
The missiles were a non-issue to begin with (and aren’t Stingers, not that it matters).
Such missiles are widely available to people with money and connections, such as al Quaeda; the Russians sell ’em all over the place.
None of them can hit an airliner at cruising altitude, so they’re only useful relatively near the airport.
They’re big, heavy, and awkward.
There’s a reason there’s never been a SAM attack on an aircraft in the First World, and it’s unlikely to ever be a problem – terrorist organizations can do more damage with less risk of failure and less cost, with other means.
Sigivald, the linked piece used the phrase “stinger-like”:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/nightmare-libya-20000-surface-air-missiles-missing/story?id=14610199
***QUOTE***
“I think the probability of al Qaeda being able to smuggle some of the stinger-like missiles out of Libya is probably pretty high,” said Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism advisor and now a consultant to ABC News.
***END QUOTE***
And that there had been SAM attacks on civilian aircrafts:
***QUOTE***
Adding to the urgency is the fact that America’s passenger jets, like those of most countries, are sitting ducks, despite years of warning about the missile threat. Since the 1970s, according to the U.S. State Department, more than 40 civilian planes around the world have been hit by surface-to-air missiles. In 2003, Iraqi insurgents hit a DHL cargo plane with a missile in Baghdad. Though on fire, the plane was able to land safely. Four years later, militants knocked a Russian-built cargo plane out of the sky over Somalia, killing all 11 crew members.
***END QUOTE***
40 is too many, IMO. I don’t know how many of them have occurred in the First World, but don’t First World planes routinely fly over or two Third World countries? And doesn’t the Third World border the First World in many places (such as our border with Mexico)?
***QUOTE***
Adding to the urgency is the fact that America’s passenger jets, like those of most countries, are sitting ducks, despite years of warning about the missile threat. Since the 1970s, according to the U.S. State Department, more than 40 civilian planes around the world have been hit by surface-to-air missiles. In 2003, Iraqi insurgents hit a DHL cargo plane with a missile in Baghdad. Though on fire, the plane was able to land safely. Four years later, militants knocked a Russian-built cargo plane out of the sky over Somalia, killing all 11 crew members.
***END QUOTE***
Forty aircraft since 1970 is just under one per year. Plus those are “civilian aircraft” not jet airliners. “Civilian aircraft” include Piper Cubs and sky-eye helicopters as well as airliners. Additionally, those are aircraft hit, not aircraft shot down.
Stingers are hell-on-wheels against helicopters, especially the small helicopters used for reconnaisance, but that is about it. It is almost impossible for a Stinger-type missile to hit a jet airliner. They are heat-seeking and the thrust from a airliner jet’s exhaust is strong enough to stop the missile in mid-air.
Please note that the two successful strikes you cite both occurred in war zones. That’s likely because there were scores of unsuccessful attacks before achieving success. You can get away with that in a chaotic environment, but in the US or EU you are going to get one try.
Even in Mexico, you are going to get one try. Drug cartels are not going to tolerate terrorism (other than their own to intimidate local law enfocement) because Islamic-style terrorism attracts too much bad publicity – and maybe the attention of the US military. The Drug Lords don’t want to make themselves targets for drone strikes.
Also what *was* the Russian aircraft that got downed? A big multi-engine jet or a small bush cargo airplane?