If I recall correctly, we went into Libya — or, at any rate, over Libya — to stop the brutal Qaddafi dictatorship killing the Libyan people. And thanks to our efforts a whole new mass movement of freedom-loving democrats now has the opportunity to kill the Libyan people. As the Los Angeles Times reported from Benghazi, these democrats are roaming the city “rousting Libyan blacks and immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa from their homes and holding them for interrogation as suspected mercenaries or government spies.” According to the New York Times, “Members of the NATO alliance have sternly warned the rebels in Libya not to attack civilians as they push against the regime of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.” We dropped bombs on Qaddafi’s crowd for attacking civilians, and we’re prepared to do the same to you! “The coalition has told the rebels that the fog of war will not shield them from possible bombardment by NATO planes and missiles, just as the regime’s forces have been punished.”
Advertisement
So, having agreed to be the Libyan Liberation Movement Air Force, we’re also happy to serve as the Qaddafi Last-Stand Air Force. Say what you like about Barack Obama, but it’s rare to find a leader so impeccably multilateralist he’s willing to participate in both sides of a war. It doesn’t exactly do much for holding it under budget, but it does ensure that for once we’ve got a sporting chance of coming out on the winning side. If a coalition plane bombing Qaddafi’s forces runs into a coalition plane bombing the rebel forces, are they allowed to open fire on each other? Or would that exceed the U.N. resolution?
Who are these rebels we’re simultaneously arming and bombing? Don’t worry, the CIA is “gathering intelligence” on them. They should have a clear of who our allies are round about the time Mohammed bin Jihad is firing his Kalashnikov and shouting “Death to the Great Satan!” from the balcony of the presidential palace. But America’s commander-in-chief thinks they’re pretty sound chaps. “The people that we’ve met with have been fully vetted,” says President Obama. “So we have a clear sense of who they are. And so far they’re saying the right things. And most of them are professionals, lawyers, doctors — people who appear to be credible.”
Credible people with credentials — just like the president! Lawyers, doctors, just like Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s No. 2. Maybe among their impeccably credentialed ranks is a credible professional eye doctor like Bashar Assad, the London ophthalmologist who made a successful mid-life career change to dictator of Syria. Hillary Rodham Clinton calls young Bashar a “reformer,” by which she means presumably that he hasn’t (yet) slaughtered as many civilians as his late dad. Assad Sr. killed some 20,000 Syrians at Hama and is said to have pumped hydrogen cyanide through the town: There wasn’t a dry eye in the house, as the ophthalmologists say. Baby Assad hasn’t done that (yet), so he’s a reformer, and we’re in favor of those, so we’re not arming his rebels.
According to the State Department, Colonel Qaddafi’s 27-year-old son, Khamis, is also a “reformer.” Or at least he was a few weeks ago, when U.S. officials welcomed him here for a month-long visit, including meetings at NASA and the Air Force Academy, and front-row seats for a lecture by Deepak Chopra entitled “The Soul of Leadership.” Ten minutes of which would have me buckling up the Semtex belt and yelling “Allahu Akbar!” but each to his own. It would have been embarrassing had Khamis Qaddafi still been getting the red carpet treatment in the U.S. while his dad was getting the red carpet-bombing treatment over in Tripoli. But fortunately a scheduled trip to West Point on February 21st had to be canceled when young Khamis was obliged to cut short his visit and return to Libya to start shooting large numbers of people in his capacity as the commander of a crack special-forces unit. Maybe he’ll be killed by a pilot who showed him round the Air Force Academy. Small world, isn’t it?
Obama's logic appears to be that anyone who attended law school or medical school is necessarily a good guy.Think Mengele of Zawahiri.
When are we going to learn? The only reasonable reason to vote for Obama was the hope he might get us out of these crazy wars. Instead he's invading a 3rd country with a new twist-no Congressional approval.
I share some of Mr. Steyn's apprehensions about the situation in Libya. But let's not forget that for decades, Gadhafi supported anti-American activities by terror. We may not be certain about the identities of all rebels, but we are certain of Gadhafi's identity.
Military intervention in Libya serves American interests insofar as it projects American power against dictators in the region. As a moral power, America is different from Russia or China. As a world power, it is different from Canada or Netherlands. Just as the US benefited from the victory over communism, the US will benefit from the overthrow of the "mad dogs" of the Middle East.
We don't have to oppose everything the Obama administration does just because we are in opposition. That would make us more like the Democrats who undermined American national interests over cheap political dividents during the Bush administration.
Amazing! Our war policy is a koan that leadeth not unto edification.
Still, wasn't the original worry that MB would manipulate the popular will through democratic reforms against the more secular and western friendly military states? Now it seems rather that the army and MB have teamed up.
22 Nation in the Arab League who stand to make ONE TRILLION dollars this year on oil. They ask Obama to help them out with crazy Qaddafi, and pay nothing. Obama's one world Government Utopia where WE THE PEOPLE pay the bill. What a fool we have been. The world is laughing at us.
The American Left has long believed that the only legitimate use of military force is one where we have no national interest. Obama and others on the left think the "mission" is to protect innocent civilians. Ousting Qaddafi is not a legitimate mission to Obama because it might be in America's self-interest. Obama's willing to risk American lives and spend money our country doesn't have protecting the lives of people about whom we know little or nothing... as long as there's nothing in it for us. Obama's definition of "victory" is an outcome that boosts his own moral vanity (and that of his political supporters).
It looks like our goal is to make sure that it is a fair fight. This makes sense to me. We want as many government officials and as many rebels killed as possible, while protecting the civilians.
22 Arab League Nation going to make one trillion dollars from oil this year,and will not pay one dime for this. Obama's one world ideology must mean the U.S.tax payer pays for everything. Obama claims their burning Mosque's and he can't stand by and let this happen. Hello Obama, they have been burning churches for ten years too.What a laughing stock the U.S. has been. What a shame Obama has been on the American people.
Alan, where's your evidence that conservatives oppose the Libyan War just because Obama started it?
We oppose it because, for the reasons Mark has amply set forth, this war is inane. The U.S. does not have a plan to remove Qaddafi from power, and even if we luck out and get rid of him, we have no idea whether what comes after him will be any better. If it's the "Al Qaeda elements" among the rebels, it will obviously be much worse than Qaddafi.
How does this end?
1. Qaddafi wins; America humiliated; Libya reverts to the terrorist-supporting, nuke-seeking country it was prior to 2002.
2. Stalemate. America has a long term obligation to fund and operate a military barrier protecting the rebels from Qaddafi. We're bogged down for a decade or more, accomplishing nothing.
3. Rebels win. U.S. must intervene to prevent the inevitable slaughter of pro-Qaddafi tribesmen by the rebels. U.S. must also try to cobble together and prop up a non-Al Qaeda government. Nation-building: bogged down for a decade or more, accomplishing nothing.
It's not just that these are the only three plausible outcomes of our intervention in Libya, it's that any sentient being KNEW they were the only possible outcomes before McCain, Bill Kristol, Hillary Clinton, Lieberman, Obama and company all held hands and plunged America into it.
In Ivory Coast, civilians are being hacked to death right now in a civil war that is far bloodier than Libya's. But it's not on CNN or Fox, so our government does not need to react to it.
Meanwhile in Libya, a half dozen cities have changed hands a half dozen times in the past month. Where are these Rwandan-style massacres of civilians that supposedly required our intervention?
They are not happening, and they never were about to happen. The U.S. and the West in general has no grand strategy in the world -- we are simply reacting to televised hype.
The conflict in Libya was of no importance to any non-Libyan. Now that we've bumbled into it, it is important only to the extent that it will weaken and harm America. That's virtually assured. The question is how badly.
As to coalition aircraft firing on each other, I think we can handle that. Have the pilots switch sides everyday. Like gas lines during the Carter era: Cars with tags ending with odd numbers; Monday, Wednesday and Friday; even number tags on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday; free fire zone on Sundays. That way they wont get emotionally tied to one side or the other.
You could have some interesting fights in the Officer's Club all the same:
Pilot One: Hey, you're the guy that bombed the rebels right after my airdrop of guns and ammo! (and the fight begins)
Or
Pilot Two: How about tomorrow waiting to drop the surface to air missiles to the rebels until AFTER I make my bomb run! (and the fight begins)
Follow
