Congressional Democratic leadership and Republicans are supporting the President regarding Libya. The Congressional left is predictably against the action. On the Sunday shows Democrats stressed that this is not war and that the Arab League supports the action “which makes all the difference” [as compared to Iraq].
By Sunday evening, less than two days after operations began, Secretary-General Amr Moussa said he was calling for an emergency Arab League meeting to discuss the situation in the Arab world and particularly Libya.
"What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," he said.
Apparently the Secretary General didn’t read the UN resolution which provided for “all means necessary” or listen to Obama when he said that Gaddafi had to go. In any case, so much for Arab support.
Even earlier Moscow demanded an end to the “bloodshed” in Libya asking Britain, France and the United States to stop air strikes against what it said were non-military targets in Libya, saying the attacks had caused civilian causalities.
China and India issued statements condemning the intervention and complaining about civilian casualties.
It remains a mystery how and when France will begin criticizing American actions in Libya but as I see it, it’s only a matter of time.
In this column, Douthat correctly points out that we are witnessing “liberal war”. The hallmarks of such would be that we are preventing genocide, have the whole world on our side and we are exercising restraint. We are not leading an attack on a sovereign nation; we are doing our part at the just request of the United Nations. Oh, and we deny that this is war.
A Very Liberal Intervention by Ross Douthat NYT, March 20, 2011
The President has gone further; he’s pretending that we did not lead the coalition building at the UN and that we are not leading the military effort; he is ostentatiously playing golf, discussing his bracket and traveling in South America. But Susan Rice is credited with twisting the last arms at the UN and our Secretary of State brought home the Arab League approval [now clearly fragile]. An American General and Admiral are very much in charge of the entire military operation – “due to our special capabilities”. Not to worry, we’re told, operational control will soon be turned over to others. Who’s worried? But how are we not leading if we’re in charge?
How will we convince anyone of this hypocrisy? President Bush senior, conducted a similar operation in Iraq with far better cause and far greater support. But the world exercised restraint and left Saddam in place. We left, he murdered, we came back, and after twelve years of enforcing a no-fly zone, we invaded – we must learn from that experience.
Once the first shot was fired, my position changed from opposition to this operation to support. I do not retract my original opposition – I wish we hadn’t done this – but now we’re in and I’m an advocate of winning. We have committed an act of war – who are these people kidding? “Restraint” in war is mostly nonsense. We have wounded the bear and he must now be killed or captured.
Gaddafi is not just a bad guy, he’s nuts. This guy spent a fortune blowing up an airplane full of innocent civilians from many nations because he was pissed at America. There is no way for sanctions to stop Libya from selling its oil – China will buy it and so will the Europeans if the price is right, remember Saddam? If Gaddafi remains, he’ll be rich, pissed off and nuts. Unacceptable.
By the way, after the Lockerbie bomber was released by the Scots about four years ago – the dying man who miraculously recovered upon setting foot on the tarmac in Libya – European nations sold Gaddafi $1.3 billion in arms; everything from planes to small arms. How’s that for double hypocrisy? What is a dictator to think these days? Arms dealers must be pissed.
Finally, speaking of policy and hypocrisy. Bahrain which is governed by a minority Sunni monarchy is killing its majority Shiite demonstrators with the help of troops from a neighboring Sunni monarchy [the Saudis]. The Sunni Yemeni dictator is doing the same to his Shiite demonstrators. Gaddafi’s opposition was armed, these demonstrators are not. The spent tear gas canisters in both Bahrain and Yemen are stamped “Made in America”. A few years ago we determined that the Sudanese government was committing genocide – we urged the government to behave and sought sanctions.
Is there a rule book explaining when we protect civilians?
Do we really think we’re going to positively impact the militant Muslim narrative with these actions? [The narrative is that America is out to destroy Islam. And people in the street believe it in growing numbers.]
There is a certain sickening plausibility to the idea that Bush wanted to finish what his father started and that Clinton, Clintonites and progressives still sting from their inaction in Rwanda. That would be no way to run a railroad folks.
The only good thing going on at the moment is that Republicans and Democrats are supporting the President. We must not politicize foreign policy, let alone wars. Congress should now immediately figure out how to pay for this action.
And when the dust settles, we need an honest foreign policy conversation led by the President and supported by experts.
· Attacking foreign nations from the air is war – so are blockades and many types of sanctions.
· Only Congress should be able to attack another nation unprovoked, regardless of the cause.
Right, that’s a likely event.
No comments:
Post a Comment