opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Patrick Buchanan
Pat Buchanan
12 Feb 2016
How Republics Perish

If you believed America's longest war, in Afghanistan, was coming to an end, be advised: It is not. Departing U.S.… Read More.

9 Feb 2016
Bloomberg vs. Trump?

The morning of the New Hampshire primary, Donald Trump, being interviewed on "Morning Joe," said that he … Read More.

5 Feb 2016
The Remainderman

Donald Trump won more votes in the Iowa caucuses than any Republican candidate in history. Impressive, except … Read More.

Are We Allied to a Corpse?


Of our Libyan intervention, one thing may be safely said, and another safely predicted.

When he launched his strikes on the Libyan army and regime, Barack Obama did not think it through. And this nation is now likely to be drawn even deeper into that war.

For Moammar Gadhafi's forces not only survived the U.S. air and missile strikes, after which we turned the air war over to NATO, his forces have since shown themselves superior to the rebels. Without NATO, the rebels would have been routed a month ago.

And, today, NATO itself stands a chance of being humiliated.

"NATO's Bomb Supply Is Running Short," ran Saturday's headline in The Washington Post over a story that began thus:

"Less than a month into the Libyan conflict, NATO is running short of precision bombs, highlighting the limitations of Britain, France and other European countries in maintaining even a relatively small military action over an extended period of time. ...

"The shortage of European munitions, along with the limited number of aircraft available, has raised doubts ... about whether the United States can continue to avoid returning to the air campaign if Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi hangs on to power."

Only six NATO nations have planes running strikes on the Libyan army, and the French and British, who are doing most of the bombing, are running out of laser-guided munitions. And their planes are not equipped to handle U.S. smart bombs.

NATO air attacks are thus becoming less precise and lethal, as Gadhafi is pounding Misrata, the last rebel-held city in the west, and his army is again contesting Ajdabiya, the gateway to Benghazi.

In short, the war is not going well. Where does this leave us?

If the United States does not get back on the field, the Libyan army will likely crush resistance in Misrata and push the rebels back to Benghazi and Tobruk.

As the rebels lack the soldiering experience or organization to conduct an offensive, and their NATO air arm is weakening, the best they can probably hope for in the near term is to hold on to what they have in the east. Which means a stalemate — a no-win war.

Can Obama accept such an outcome to a war he started, at the outset of which he declared Gadhafi must go? Can he go into 2012 with Republicans mocking him for picking a fight with Gadhafi, then losing it for the United States? Can Obama leave Gadhafi in Tripoli knowing he is plotting terror attacks against America in reprisal?

If Gadhafi survives, does Obama survive?

Can he tell the beleaguered British and French we are not going to double down on our folly of having started this war?

In an op-ed last week in The New York Times, Obama, along with Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron, wrote:

"Our duty and our mandate is ...

not to remove Gadhafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Gadhafi in power. ... It is unthinkable that someone who tried to massacre his own people can play a part in their future government."

But if it is "unthinkable" and "impossible" for Gadhafi to remain in power, who is going to remove him?

Absent celestial intervention, it is Uncle Sam, or no one.

If regime change is now the unstated NATO mission, who but the United States can ensure the mission is accomplished?

The Post story about Britain and France, the leading military powers of NATO Europe, depleting their smart-bomb supply in a one-month clash with an African nation of 6 million, and begging the Yanks to come back and win the war for them, raises a major question.

Is the most successful alliance in history, which kept the Red Army of Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev from smashing through the Fulda Gap and reaching the Channel, a hollow shell?

Is NATO, without America, a paper tiger?

On the eve of World War I, the German foreign minister, after visiting the aged Emperor Franz Josef in Austria, reported back to the Kaiser, "Sire, we are allied to a corpse."

Are we?

In the 1990s, we had to pull the British and French chestnuts out of the Bosnian fire. When Serbs fought for their cradle province of Kosovo, America had to break Belgrade with 78 days of bombing.

NATO Europe couldn't handle a fight in its own backyard.

Though we are still in Iraq, NATO is gone. There are NATO units in Afghanistan, but some have pulled out and others won't fight.

What benefit does America receive from membership in NATO to justify the cost of maintaining tens of thousands of troops, air and naval bases, ships and planes defending a rich and populous continent that chronically refuses to provide the arms and men to defend itself?

Why are Americans still defending Europe 66 years after World War II ended and a generation after the Soviet Union disappeared?

Isn't it time we kicked them out of the nest?

To find out more about Patrick Buchanan, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at



5 Comments | Post Comment
I have been to Afghanistan, and I have seen British, French saddle up and go on armed patrols. They have been at it as long as the US has and with less population. I usually agree with you Mr. Buchanan but this time you are way off. The Brits have and the French nearly always and Aussies have always been by our side. The others when it is convenient. We in the US don't need to be more isolationist. We just need to remember who are friends really are.
Comment: #1
Posted by: random access
Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:10 PM
"Our duty and our mandate is ...not to remove Gadhafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Gadhafi in power. ... It is unthinkable that someone who tried to massacre his own people can play a part in their future government."

Perhaps he will gain apotheosis and Libyans will one day build a temple to him, even as Americans did for President Abraham Lincoln, who presided over the slaughter of 620,000 Americans and the maiming of almost half a million, who lost eyes, arms and legs.

America should not be focusing its energies on a tin pot dictator afar, but examining the tyrant who occupies the throne at home.

This attention of this nation has been deliberately distracted by those in power, for far too long.

Comment: #2
Posted by: T.H. Asgardson
Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:26 AM
Correction: The attention span of this nation has been deliberately distracted by those in power, for far too long.
Comment: #3
Posted by: T.H. Asgardson
Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:30 AM
-----Buchanan is a CNP Rockefeller front decoy.
He talks the isolationist America first line but has NEVER made the
over-awing culpability of the Globalists the real focus in a sustained
fearless and unflinching way.
Nixon/MAO was the source of our present downfall. Nixon at the behest
of Acheson/Rickefeller through Kissinger.
The triple betrayal and worse, far worse, of REAL China itself from the days
of Sassoon opium under British official protection, the later betreayal of the
seeds of Chinese democracy, the introduction of Marxism, the cultivation
and installation of MAO.
Byuchanan has never owned up to his part in all this. He's never dared given
it the spotlight it deserves. What's worse, he's pitched 'moral relativist' diversions
at key moments, such as his recent WW2 revisionism.
Buchanan is a front------------------------------------------------
Comment: #4
Posted by: free bee
Tue Apr 19, 2011 7:38 PM
How bout Y'all let me know when Canada or Mexico invades USA soil.

I'll grab my boots and guns and join you in the rare "just war"

All this other jazz is just white noise, just blah, blah

FREEDOM is a slogan on bumper stickers, sold to you by the Multi-national bumper sticker corporation


Pat Buchanan is RIGHT ON BABY

Comment: #5
Posted by: Soothsayer
Tue Apr 19, 2011 9:11 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
Pat Buchanan
Feb. `16
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Authorís Podcast
Lawrence Kudlow
Lawrence KudlowUpdated 13 Feb 2016
diane dimond
Diane DimondUpdated 13 Feb 2016
Mark Shields
Mark ShieldsUpdated 13 Feb 2016

9 Mar 2007 Martyr of the War Party

6 Nov 2014 The Kumbaya Temptation

14 Aug 2014 Let Congress Vote on Iraq War III