[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Reagan was out to destroy the USSR, my enemy's enemy is my friend, is simply what was at play there. Reagan's support of the mujahideen in Afghanistan brought tremendous "bang for the buck" in terms of hurting the USSR financially and militarily, with minimal risk to US military personnel (not including covert ops folks of course).

I'm not sure what the correlation with Reagan's actions vs. Obama's actions is. Outside of taking out Gaddafi, which as I mentioned before could be fairly easily accomplished with an "off-course" cruise missle or a covert op assist to the rebels, what is our goal here? What are we accomplishing in the sense of a Mid East or global strategy? I think arming the rebels sends a very bad message and is the wrong thing to do. Again as I mentioned before, we need to get to the background of this quickly and let NATO, the Arab League, the French or Brits take point on this one.

If this was Iran and we're talking about arming rebels against that regime, maybe there's an end-game that benefits US interests a great deal and it's worth the risk (but I certainly don't do it publicly). In Libya, I don't see it.

Looks like we are taking more of a back seat role. I like.

In addition to pulling combat aircraft out of Libya mission, Navy missiles also put on standby | StarTribune.com