Free Libya or leave it alone

Six months before the liberation of Iraq, I wrote “Free Iraq or leave it alone” on one of those Internet news groups.

My point was, if President Bush intended to carry out President Clinton’s policy of regime change in Iraq, he’d have to replace Saddam Hussein’s fascist government with a democratic government, or very quickly Iraq would have another dictator and the Iraqi people would be no better off.

The point holds now. To correct Colin Powell’s poorly premised rule, “If you choose to help a broken country, you must fix it.” The only thing that fixes a long-oppressed nation like Libya is freedom. And that takes bloody, expensive nation building. Otherwise, in Libya, we’re wasting the money we’re borrowing from China.

‘That road.’ Unfortunately, President Obama last night made it fairly clear he doesn’t plan to free the Libyans.

“To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.”

Obama will help the pro-democracy Libyans from the air for a while, but if Moammar Kaddafi can kill them all on the ground, that’s too bad, because we’re not going to kill or capture Kaddafi and we’re not going to oversee the democratization of Libya.

I just have to wonder how the president can say “We have intervened to stop a massacre” this year when he has no commitment to prevent the same feared massacre next year.

We’ve chosen Libya but we’re going to leave it, and we’re going to leave it broken. It would have been better not to have chosen Libya at all.

Frank Warner

* * *

Freedom Count in last night’s speech: 6, average

Freedom: 6 times.
Liberty: 0
Democracy: 0

Total: 6

Comments

[Neo]

The Obama Doctrine: Quick Convenient No Risk Humanitarian Intervention Anywhere

So far, Libya has down one plane, with no deaths (except the six civilians on the ground who came out to greet one of the crew).

[jj mollo]

The either/or doesn't really apply. Obama has stated how far we're willing to go, and I imagine that the rebels are happy with our contribution. There is still hope for them if they can win on there own, as the Afghans did with minimum US support, and there is hope also that other forces will provide enough assistance to carry the day. France, UK and conceivably Egypt might make the difference after we have brushed our hands and walked away.

[CJW]

Reports: Libyan rebels retreating in disarray

[What?]

jj, I don't know if you ever read the blog The Dignified Rant. I think it's good stuff. The Dignified Rant also postulates the possibility we might get "lucky" and the rebels achieve victory.

I think the analogy to Afghanistan is way more accurate than Obama's "false choice" sighting Iraq. The thing was Afghanistan flipped somewhat easily precisely because we did use a small force and a small force was sufficient there for several years. Unlike Afghanistan with the Taliban and their safe havens in Iran and Pakistan. I don't think GDaffy loyalists gain strength over time. I always believed the Taliban would eventually be back in Afghanistan. The only reason it took as long as it did, is because those jihadists focused their resources in Iraq until it was clear they were getting their butt kicked.

We are so blowing an opportunity.