Word: gaddafis
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
With the exception of Jordan and Egypt, which remained circumspect, most Arab nations lambasted the U.S. for its arrogance and aggression. As usual, even those who privately abhor Gaddafi linked arms in Arab solidarity rather than side with the U.S. That reflex worries Republican Charles Mathias, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "A lot of their leaders don't like Gaddafi any more than we do," he says. "But we put them into the position of having to choose between him and us." Although Washington hoped the operation would diminish the Libyan's prestige, it seemed more likely...
...battle of Sidra left a few smoking Libyan boats and one large question mark: Will America's slap at Gaddafi deter or stimulate further terrorism? The Administration believes that its response will induce Gaddafi to be cautious. "If people know they are likely to get clobbered if they act up, they are likely to think twice about it," said Brent Scowcroft, National Security Adviser under Gerald Ford. But Gaddafi was hardly clobbered this time around. He has vowed, and there is no reason to disbelieve him, that he will continue his war against the U.S. in an arena in which...
...Orleans, Reagan pledged that the U.S. "would hold Mr. Gaddafi responsible for his actions." The Sidra skirmish showed that the U.S. would indeed strike back in a carefully calibrated way when given a clean and easy target. But such occasional shootouts, when accompanied by alarmist rhetoric but no sustained diplomatic initiatives, in the Middle East or elsewhere, are hardly a foundation for an effective policy, especially against terrorism. Nor does the battle of Sidra provide much of a guide for retaliation when the source of the threat is not as easy to identify as a speeding patrol boat...
...most Americans, smiting Libya's Muammar Gaddafi certainly felt good: taking up his "line of death" dare, double-daring him back, winning a public slapping match, sailing away. Yet, now what? America might seem just a bit less like a helpless giant, but could a breezy flick really be expected to chasten Gaddafi? And the sight of Army choppers kicking up dust in a foreign bush was disquieting, an eerie evocation of Apocalypse Now. In Ronald Reagan's two-front muscle flexing last week, the images and the reality were hard to sort out. Power, yes, and the will...
Reagan's intent is unambiguous: to stop Gaddafi from fomenting terrorism and to stop Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega Saavedra from spreading Marxist revolution. Indeed, Reagan would not mind going one step further and getting both men right off the world stage. But eliminating such nemeses is not so easy. For all his make-my-day bluster, Reagan is no less bound than were his immediate predecessors by rules of military engagement that, while rooted in the best democratic traditions, have been carried to unreal extremes: American boys should not be seen dying on the nightly news. Wars should be over...