Thursday, August 25, 2011

Sarah Palin: On The Future Of Libya

This statement from Palin is pitch perfect. I share her concerns about the future Libyan leadership. I also agree that it's time to pack up and go home. Let's keep an eye on them from a distance, but we can't afford another 10 year nation building commitment.

Via Facebook:
We join the Libyan people in gratefulness as we hear of Col. Gaddafi’s defeat. The fall of a tyrant and sponsor of terrorism is a great day for freedom-loving people around the world. But the path to democracy in Libya is not complete, and we must make wise choices to ensure that our national interests are protected.

First, the White House needs to avoid triumphalism. Gaddafi may be gone, but the fighting may not be complete. As we’ve seen in Kosovo, Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, we must not celebrate too quickly. There are now mounting concerns that we will see tribal and sectarian fighting in Libya like we saw in Iraq. Let’s hope that is not the case, but it must be prepared for.

Second, we must be very concerned about the future government that will emerge to take Gaddafi’s place. History teaches that those with the guns usually prevail when a coalition overthrows a tyrant. We must remember that military power ultimately resides with the rebel commanders. This should be a source of some concern. The armed opposition to Gaddafi is an outgrowth of a group called Islamic Libya Fighting Group, and some rebel commanders admit that they have Al Qaeda links. The rebel fighters are from different tribes, and they have a variety of political views. Some are Islamists, some appear to favor some sort of western democracy. We should work through diplomatic means to help those who want democracy to come out on top.

That said, 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.

Finally, we must make sure that terrorist groups don’t try to co-opt the revolution, as Al Qaeda is trying to do in Syria. We should continue to use our intelligence assets to monitor the situation in Libya to ensure that potentially dangerous weapons are secured, and that terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda don’t gain a foothold in Libya.

People of Libya, be vigilant. May this opportunity be used to build a free and peaceful country.

- Sarah Palin

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.


Anonymous said...

As with most of Palin's comments on foreign policy.... or policies in general... Palin is in error.

What the US does need to is exactly the opposite.... we need to insure stability in the area to continue to be able to ensure access to oil.

Palin's overall lack of knowledge on subjects such as this is a major reason she has no business anywhere near the oval office.

Anonymous said...

Anon, so we need to deploy troops to Libya and extend our already scattered forces farther? I don't think so. You'll be hard pressed to get most people to agree with you.

Matt Y.

Anonymous said...

Romney put his out 3 days ago. I guess it took her ghostie time to find Libya on a map this time?

Right Wingnut said...


All I found was a statement on his hopes that Libya will form a representative government, and his desire for the extradition of the Lockerbie bomber. I didn't see his position on what our involvement should be going forward.

Anonymous said...

I see RAM has been pulled from under the bus to spew some hate for Sarah. I prefer Sarah's word salads, they're much more believable.

Anonymous said...


Palin is going to announce her candidacy by parachuting out of a plane over Libya and include it to her extensive foreign policy experience. That, along with seeing Russia from Alaska will undoubtedly enhance her foreign policy experience over any of the other candidates.

Palin 2012!!

BOSMAN said...

I'll take Palin ANY DAY over Perry!

Anonymous said...

Palin is not worried that this will not be a real victory for our President, our military, and our country. She is worried that it WILL be.

And what does that worry reveal about the truth of Sarah Palin's patriotism?

Anonymous said...

Next week I think I'll send a letter to the Pope. I've got some ideas on how I think he should handle his duties in the Vatican City. I'm not catholic and he didn't ask for advice, but I'm sure the Pope will appreciate my commonsense ideas as I interject myself into a situation that is clearly beyond my experience and understanding. You betcha.

Anonymous said...

Palin has laid out a very thoughtful and prudent step forward in dealing with post-Gaddafi Libya. If you read it carefully, Palin is calling for an implementation of what is being known as the Palin Doctrine.

In a few paragraphs, she has laid out more of a response and plan in how to deal with post-Gaddafi Libya than any of the current Presidential contenders.


Anonymous said...

Anon 9:06...what do you specifically disagree with about Palin's position on post-Gaddafi Libya?

You seem to consistently criticize Palin for being basic and speaking in platitudes but your critiques of her policy positions and her existence is worded in the very same type of platitudes that you wrongfully accuse Governor Palin of.

What do you disagree with?

Prove to us that you are not a troll by having one original thought.


Anonymous said...

Once Sarah leaves even one basic thought that comes from her, as opposed to her ghost writers, then I'll leave mine. I really don't think Sarah even understands "her" policy but RAM probably does. RAM should be running for POTUS, she's the mouth behind the media mogul.

Anonymous said...

Okay Anon...obviously you're Ellie...because Ellie loves to talk about Palin's ghost writer(who doesn't exist) I think you're the only one who still believes she has one...especially since her emails were released. Until you have something to add to the debate then you are just a troll hiding under the Romney supporter label.

Good Day,

Anonymous said...

What a're the only fool who thinks she actually writes anything except for her poorly written tweets. Clearly, she did not graduate at the top of her class. In fact, how do we know that she even graduated?

Anonymous said...

If she is so horrible and her positions are so horrid then explain to me what you disagree with? Show evidence she has a ghost writer. Prove me wrong. Debate with me. Give me something other than the simpleton view of Sarah Palin's Wild Ride Ghost Writing Tour who didn't graduate college...blah blah's very tiring and boring and sophomoric.


Anonymous said...

Debating with Palinbots is impossible. All of you have lost touch with reality. Sarah remains, the biggest con artist in the history of politics. Keep sending her your money, you dumb old fool. One more thing...stop thinking with your very tiny head.

custodydoc said...

I'm glad I read this line of comments . It is clear that Anonymous said: is indoctrinated with LSM brainwashing rhetoric. It became progressively clear when cornered requiring proof of his accusations, and when he was losing the debate he came back with critical attacks about Sarah that had no credibility.

Anonymous said...

custodydoc, he/she is just a liberal troll who has nothing better to do than cause trouble, by spreading lies, on a conservative's actually quite sad. I find it amazing that this person could not find one thing they disagreed with about her post...they'd rather live their lives in baseless conspiracy theories than actually discuss the issues. As a Palin supporter, I have no problem with people who support other contenders for their own reasons...I do have problems with people that are disagreeable just to be disagreeable.