xml:space="preserve">
xml:space="preserve">
Advertisement

The Talk: The attacks on Libya

The attacks by the U.S., France, Britain and others on Libya are generating a wide range of responses, from those who say we're not using enough force to those who consider the president a war criminal for authorizing the action.

Our take is that the removal of Moammar Gadhafi from power must be the ultimate goal, but the question of whether our current strategy can achieve that is unclear. However, we are not taking the lead in these attacks, and it should not be assumed that if more force is needed, the U.S. will be the nation to provide it.

Advertisement

Dan Rodricks says this military adventure is just one more consequence of the end of the draft, which has effectively ended significant public protest against war.

Here's a sampling of some of the letters to the editor on the topic:

Advertisement

Richard L. Lelonek says the action must be a team effort, with the U.S. in a supporting role.

John Holter worries that the U.S. might have a hard time letting others take the lead.

Mark Davis says Obama is showing himself to be just as militaristic as his predecessors.

Read a full roundup of reader responses here.

Our other editorial today supports the EPA's efforts to regulate mercury and other toxic emissions from power plants.

On the op-ed page, former Congressman Wayne Gilchrest describes the key ecological role of the menhaden, a fish that is prey for rockfish and other Atlantic predators. He backs proposed restrictions on the industrial catch of menhaden, which are used for pet food, fish oil and other applications.

Finally, be sure to vote in our poll of the day: Do you approve of the decision for the U.S. to attack Libya as part of an international force?

Recommended on Baltimore Sun

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement