Futile. Barbaric. Inane. These are the words that come to mind in response to the attack on Libya.
Reagan said himself that he had "no illusions this (attack) will prevent Kadafi from mounting more terrorist raids." If stopping terrorism is presumably our objective and Reagan knew this bloody mission would fail to do so . . . why on earth did he do it? What's coming out of the White House in response to this question sounds like gibberish.
So, for that matter, was your editorial (April 15), which bent over backwards neither to condone nor condemn.
What did we accomplish with this mission save making Kadafi far more popular in the Mideast than he deserves to be, and killing Libyan citizens who are blameless in our dilemmas?
We deplore the killing of innocents by terrorists--then we turn around and behave like terrorists ourselves. Instead of isolating Libya from the world community, as prudent diplomatic strategy would have done, we have succeeded in isolating ourselves from our own allies.