Aims and Objectives: Fact: We are now and then bombing Libyan ground targets in order to enhance the chances of rebel success in removing or killing Qaddafi. Fiction: We are not offering ground support but only establishing a no-fly zone, and have no desire to force by military means Qaddafi to leave. Questions: Is our aim, then, a reformed Qaddafi? A permanently revolutionary landscape? A partitioned, bisected nation? What is the model? Afghanistan? Mogadishu? The 12-year no-fly-zone in Iraq? A Mubarak-like forced exile? Who are the rebels? Westernized reformers? Muslim Brotherhood types? A mix? Who knows? Who cares?
A think it is "make it up as we go along time" at the White House. I supported a No-Fly zone from the start and I still support it because I think America has a horse in the game when it comes to exporting freedom to foreign lands. I mean that is the Bush Doctrine in a nutshell. If you push one domino of freedom the other countries will fall. Egypt and the rest unrest in the Middle East is the Bush Doctrine brought to life.
The whole idea of saying "what's in it for us" when we see a rebel uprising (or one that could fail and genocide ensues) is un-American. We have supported rebel groups all throughout our history. I mean the war in Afghanistan was basically us supporting the Northern Alliance to defeat the Taliban who was harboring Al-Quida. Hell, a rebel group started this country.
Plus all this talk of the cost of things seemed pretty absent when we spent billions on our other wars. I know we don't have the money right now. But sometimes an investment in a chance to create another stable democracy is worth a few billion dollars of China's money. And mark my words it is an investment.
Democracies almost never fight each other so the chances of us intervening there for 100 years may be in the offing. I will be willing to bet that this Democracies staying peaceful doctrine (so we can ratchet back our future intervention) will continue for some time.
No comments:
Post a Comment