I do not consider the Obama doctrine a good thing ("The Obama doctrine," March 29 ). Your Martha Stewart-inspired observation needs more substance than what your editorial provides.
When I voted for Mr. Obama, it was for change we can believe in. Sadly, he has morphed into Bush III — and now even has his own "doctrine." Recently I heard the expression "Obama doctrine" in connection with Libya and I felt sick. It's déjà-vu all over again!
You were wrong in stating our military participated in the attacks on Libya's Moammar Gadhafi. No — our military led the attacks. And if anyone is stupid enough to think we are going to "hand off leadership" to NATO they are delusional. How well I remember the NATO bombers in the war against the former Yugoslavia — they all took off from the Midwest and were refueled over the Atlantic.
It's also troublesome President Obama cherry picks the conflicts where we use force to "kill people and break things." I'd say we have far more justification to attack Somalia and eradicate the piracy flourishing off their shores.
As an American taxpayer living in a country with serious problems at home along with a crushing deficit, I resent our nation being turned into the world's police force. Last month our Maryland National Guard was sent to Egypt, and we still have troops in the Balkans, not to mention all the unnecessary military bases around the world.
If our allies think bombing Libya and ousting Moammar Gadhafi is such a great idea, why didn't they start the action? The answer is that the Libyan war is and will remain an American adventure, funded by folks like me!
Roza Nester, Baltimore