There are a lot of things to complain about in our involvement in enforcing the "No Fly Zone" over Libya right now, especially as to how President Obama has demonstrated his leadership on the issue. I could point out how he has dithered while civilians were being massacred, and then said that we weren't going to participate, which gave Ghaddaffi a free hand in suppression his own people. I could also point out how he ignored Sarkozy's calls for action, or those of David Cameron's as well. The fact that even the Arab League had called for a no fly zone, although, predictably, they are now reconsidering gave him authorization to help the rebels.
But the fact of the matter is that the President is the primary agent for the implementation of the country's foreign policy, and if he feels it is in America's best interests, that decision needs to be respected and supported. So I will not be like the many Leftist hypocrites who only attacked Bush because he wasn't a Democrat, and will instead quietly support the President and the forces in harms way.
However, I do think that his statement that troops will not be put on the ground is a mistake that he will need to readdress. Like most Third World Armies, the Libyan forces are predominantly set up to kill their own citizens. As such, they tend to be more rabble looking than professional. So how are you going to discern between pro Ghaddafy forces and the rebels? What happens when rebels capture tanks and turn them on the government forces? Are they then subject to attack because we can't tell them apart? What we need are the Special Forces troops in Algeria to come assist in the targeting and direction of air power to avoid friendlies. Without them on the ground, we are going to invevitably attack the wrong guys.
So here's to the President, may he be wise and decisive. He might even find that he likes it, since he hasn't tried it yet.