U.S. objective in Libya changes once again Re: “Gates: Obama is within law in Libyan operation,” June 19
With a lawsuit over U.S. involvement in Libya pending, the question of why the U.S. is involved there deserves attention. Officially the reason is to “protect civilians,” which is possibly justifiable by the U.N. concept of the “responsibility to protect”.
But these “civilians” are generally armed and consider themselves part of an organized resistance, so are they really civilians — or has the U.S. involved itself in a Libyan civil war and sided with a group it knows little about besides it being anti-Moammar Gadhafi?
If so, then one needs to remember the blowback that resulted from supporting the Afghan “freedom fighters” in the 1980s. Here, too, the U.S. chose to support a group of “rebels” it knew little about except they were anti-Soviet. How did that work out?
What makes Libya so deserving of U.S. action — and why now? Why has the U.S. not involved itself militarily in Syria, Bahrain or even Israel-Palestine? As operations in Libya continue, it is becoming clear that the U.S. objective has gone from trying to kill Gadhafi in 1986 to supporting him to trying to kill him again.
Why is it now so imperative that he is removed from power to the extent the U.S. is using military force despite already being bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Austin Fitch
Arlington
There are good technical reasons to use ethanol
Re: “$6 billion in subsidies for fuel only feds want,” Daily Outrage, June 19
The statement that ethanol is a “fuel no one would use” must be a shocking revelation to the operators of the many race cars in which it is used extensively — and successfully.
There are sound technical reasons to use ethanol as a fuel for internal combustion engines. Subsidies obscure the real costs and may well be outrageous, but that is not because ethanol is an unsuitable fuel.
Dwight Harrison
Vienna
Independent voters will determine future of U.S.
Re: “Government looks to past, free enterprise to future,” June 18
Michael Barone perpetuates the myth that “Republicans want less government.” It’s just not true. Both parties want as much government as they can get away with. The recent bipartisan effort to cut nothing and pretend as if they cut almost everything proves the point.
House Speaker John Boehner’s “largest cuts in history” actually increased spending. This didn’t surprise independent voters, who had already discovered that both parties are the same.
The future will not be protected, as Barone insinuates in his article, by Republicans or Democrats. Rather, the future will belong to any candidates who market themselves under new titles, if not new parties.
The “Tea Party” is just beginning. When the nation rejects Obama’s corporatism and war just as it rejected Bush’s, the new litmus test for voters will not be Democrat vs. Republican — but independent vs. status quo.
David Bier
Arlington
