This is absurd.
According to the Secretary of Defense, we intervened in Libya not out of national interest of to stop a security threat, we intervened to "engage Arabs, and engage Europeans." That is absurd.
The whole rationale behind this intervention is absurd. It is just amazing that the Secretary of Defense would make the case of intervention based on some ridiculous concept of "engaging Arabs and Europeans." That is the new strategy?
The line of thinking behind this action opens the door for the United States to get involved wherever it pleases, with no real mission, just vague notions of "engagement" and "humanitarian" issues. Amazing.
“It was not -- it was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest and it was an interest for all of the reasons Secretary Clinton talked about. The engagement of the Arabs, the engagement of the Europeans, the general humanitarian question that was at stake,” he said.
Gates explained that there was more at stake, however. “There was another piece of this though, that certainly was a consideration. You've had revolutions on both the East and the West of Libya,” he said, emphasizing the potential wave of refugees from Libya could have destabilized Tunisia and Egypt.
According to the Secretary of Defense, we intervened in Libya not out of national interest of to stop a security threat, we intervened to "engage Arabs, and engage Europeans." That is absurd.
The whole rationale behind this intervention is absurd. It is just amazing that the Secretary of Defense would make the case of intervention based on some ridiculous concept of "engaging Arabs and Europeans." That is the new strategy?
The line of thinking behind this action opens the door for the United States to get involved wherever it pleases, with no real mission, just vague notions of "engagement" and "humanitarian" issues. Amazing.