By Lauri B. ReganWhere does one begin to parse the inane and irrational thinking that went into the Obama administration’s public rebuke of Egypt and the United Arab Emirates for attacking the Islamists who beheaded 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians in Libya? Pentagon Spokesperson Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby condemned Egypt’s airstrikes on ISIS stating
We discourage other nations from taking a part in Libya’s issues through violence. We want the issues solved in Libya to be done peacefully and through good governance and politics and not violence.
So it’s okay for the U.S. to join forces with Iran (an enemy) to help fight ISIS in Iraq, a county that fell into chaos when the geniuses in the White House decided to lose a war that had been won – just for political expediency. But it’s not okay for Egypt (an ally) to defend itself and its citizens against the maniacal terrorists in Libya, a country that fell into chaos when the geniuses in the White House decided to lead from behind – just for political expediency.
The U.S. may discourage nations from using violence in Libya but the Libyan terrorists (perhaps the same ones who killed four Americans in Benghazi two years ago) could care a less what we want. Violence is all they know and while Obama may prefer to turn and run with his tail between his legs, it’s nice to see that the Egyptians, Jordanians, and Emiratis actually have some balls.
Does anyone even know what “good governance and politics” means in the context of Libya? Obama led from behind and now the country is a mess just like Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Who exactly does he want to govern? And which political parties does he want to peacefully solve issues? The one allied with the Islamists or the one allied with Egypt? And were issues being peacefully solved when our embassy was attacked in Benghazi and four Americans were ....
