'Palestinians' don't want US troops here either
These two nutcases may want to insert US troops between Israel and a 'Palestinian' reichlet, but even the 'Palestinians' have said '
no, thank you.'
"We will not agree to the presence of any foreign forces in our
territories," spokesman for various Palestinian groups said. "Such
forces, especially if they are led by the U.S., would be viewed as an
occupying power."
Those who are opposed to the deployment of foreign troops in the
Palestinian territories say that they would never accept a situation
"where Israeli occupation is replaced with another occupation."
The Palestinians were commenting on a 2009 report that resurfaced this week, entitled, "A Last Chance For A Two State Israel-Palestine Agreement."
The report was co-authored by then-Senator Chuck Hagel, who was
confirmed this week as US Secretary of Defense. It talks about deploying
a "US-led multinational force" which would "feature American leadership
of a NATO force supplemented by Jordanians, Egyptians and Israelis."
I guess the 'Palestinians' really feel much warmer about the US since President Hussein Obama took office. What could go wrong?
Shabbat Shalom everyone.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Palestinian state, two-state solution, US ground troops
Your mileage may vary
A new Rasmussen survey says that the United States should not deploy troops abroad unless it is '
vital to US national security.' The actual term in the survey question was '
vital to our national interest.'
All well and good. But people can differ over what is 'vital to our national interest.'
Hmmm.
Labels: National Security, Rasmussen Reports, US ground troops
And you thought there wouldn't be US boots on the ground in Libya - Part 2
Here's
another indication that there may eventually be US troops on the ground in Libya.
During a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island asked Adm. James Stavridis about NATO putting forces into “post-Gadhafi” Libya to make sure the country doesn’t fall apart. Stavridis said he “wouldn’t say NATO’s considering it yet.” But because of NATO’s history of putting peacekeepers in the Balkans — as pictured above — “the possibility of a stabilization regime exists.”
So welcome to a new possible “endgame” for Libya. Western troops patrolling Libya’s cities during a a shaky transition after Moammar Gadhafi’s regime has fallen, however that’s supposed to happen. Thousands of NATO troops patrolled Bosnia and Kosovo’s tense streets for years. And Iraq and Afghanistan taught the U.S. and NATO very dearly that fierce insurgent conflict can follow the end of a brutal regime. In fact, it’s the moments after the regime falls that can be the most dangerous of all — especially if well-intentioned foreign troops become an object of local resentment.
In fact, Stavridis told Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma that he saw “flickers of intelligence” indicating “al-Qaeda [and] Hezbollah” have fighters amongst the Libyan rebels. The Supreme Allied Commander of NATO noted that the leadership of the rebels are “responsible men and women struggling against Col. Gadhafi” and couldn’t say if the terrorist element in the opposition is “significant.” But the U.S. knows precious little about who the Libyan rebels are.
The new prospect of NATO force on the ground in Libya seemed to alarm Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who got Stavridis to say that there’s “no discussion of the insertion of ground troops” in NATO circles. (And “to my knowledge” there aren’t troops there now, he said.) But Stavridis told Reed that the memory of the long NATO peacekeeping efforts in the Balkans is “in everyone’s mind.”
And the US isn't even running the show - NATO is.
What could go wrong?
Labels: NATO, US ground troops
