". . . we should not commit U.S. troops or military assets to serve as peacekeepers or perform humanitarian missions or nation-building in Libya. Our military is already over-committed and strained, and a vaguely designed mission can be the first step toward a quagmire. The internal situation does not seem stable enough for U.S. forces to operate in a purely humanitarian manner without the possibility of coming under attack. Troop deployment to Libya would mean placing America’s finest in a potentially hostile zone that is not in our vital national security interest."
1. Troops should not be committed without a clear mission goal.
2. Troops should not be committed even for humanitarian purposes where ability to protect our troops is lacking.
3. Troops should not be committed when our national security interests are not at stake.
I would add that, aside from military considerations, there are economic realities. When our economic condition is so weak that we have to borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend, that has a real limiting effect on foreign policy/intervention potential.
2 comments:
This would be referred to as "our military policy."
A military policy would set out the conditions of use, and the goals for that use, by our Commander in Chief, and guide the decisions of the commanders under his command.
We used to have such policies, such as a foreign policy, market policy, and a human-rights policy, just to name a few. I dare anyone to reduce our current policies into such a simple statement, as has been done in this case.
Of course, it's easier to blame Bush.
.
Good point, TMI! This is a more targeted version of Palin's May Colorado speech.
http://www.sarahpac.com/posts/tribute-to-the-troops-with-governor-palin
Post a Comment