streiff (Profile) at Redstate ("We’re happy warriors and we’re glad to have you in the fight.") does not favor U.S. intervention in Libya.
Money quote(s):
"One of the immutable laws of politics is that the Democrat party will refuse to use military intervention in any location where the US has strategic geopolitical or trade interests. The corollary to that law is that there is no Third World craphole (see Somalia, Darfur, Haiti) to which the Democrats will not offer to send US troops so long as it is high risk and with no real purpose.
One must understand both these rules to comprehend the calls coming from the left demanding US intervention in Libya."
The above would be hilarious if it didn't ring so historically true. Why it is that the U.S. must always act in its disinterest remains an intellectual leap beyond my poor powers.
"(I)t all boils down to the same thing: they are considering sending young men and women to death and injury for no purpose larger than feeling good about themselves and they are doing it with the same callous insouciance with which they cheerfully supported John Murtha’s (D-Ninth Circle) slow bleed strategy in Iraq."
It's an easy thing to do, when you don't have any skin in the game. Having said that, active duty aviation colleagues of mine seem to feel pretty can-do about being able to handle the job of a no-fly-zone.
Naturally, if Italy, for example, invokes the NATO charter in the face of a sea-borne invasion from Libya, the U.S. would be honor-bound to assist, I'm sure.
"Libya is the anti-Iraq. Where Iraq occupied key real estate and had the underpinnings of being a significant regional power, Libya has nothing and virtually is nothing.
If we’ve learned anything in the past 20 years is should be that we cannot let US foreign policy be driven by media coverage. We intervened in Haiti’s internal strife in 1994, again to make a certain class of intellectual feel good about “doing something” and withdrew having done nothing but show the world we did nothing. More tragically, we became embroiled in Somalia for the same reason, to “do something” without any observable strategic purpose, and our subsequent pell-mell retreat convinced bin Laden that he could replicate the effect.
Truth be told, what happens in Libya doesn’t matter to us so long as it stays confined to Libya. If anyone should be concerned it is the Euros who, no matter which way the situation turns out, will be on the receiving end of a stream of political refugees. If the EU does become involved it is hard to see exactly what value-added US forces will represent given the relative proximity of the EU to Libya."
The U.S. was already suckered into doing the heavy lifting in the Balkans, which at least had the excuse of not actually being contiguous with any actual NATO countries. And yet, I seem to remember it was the same NATO partner which faced the Former Yugoslavia across the Adriatic Sea as is directly north of Tunisia. Hmmm. I'm trying to recall whether Italy sent anything to Iraq except Communist journalists and spooks to pay their ransoms. Maybe they were more involved in Afghanistan.
"Let’s not fool ourselves. If we intervene in Libya we do so for no strategic or humanitarian purpose and without any real consideration of what may follow."
A strategy for which an intervention operation would be an integral part would be such a nice thing to have.
2 comments:
Sorry...I don't buy the whole "no strategic interest" part and he invokes Somalia which is kind of like "look, ma, we failed and it turned into a bigger cr*phole that has pirates screwing with the global economy, sending money to al qaeda after ransoming off hostages and cargo".
Libya is of interest, not solely because of Europe, but because we are interested in Egypt remaining stable. Instability in Libya, such as continued war, refugees, potential for arms and terrorists crossing unchecked into Egypt to stir problems, creates a major problem there.
Second, I do not understand why everyone seems to ignore the fact that it is a relatively peaceful and stable Mediterranean rim that allows huge amounts of trade to and from the US to traverse unmolested through the Mediterranean and the Suez, out into the Red Sea and into the Indian Ocean, etc, etc, etc.
Instability on the rim means unstable trade and that means a continued rising cost of goods that could seriously destabilize our already perilous economy and the even worse economies of Europe.
Or have we forgotten that the Marines went to Tripoli for that reason almost two hundred years ago? Barbary pirates had become unbearable and supported by the Bey whom we deposed and put in place his brother Hamid? Is somebody seriously saying that we do not have a strategic interest there and it is only important to the Euros?
I'm inclined to agree with Ralph Peters (who was on Fox earlier this evening) and that schwacking Qadafi by enforcing a no-fly-zone is worth doing just because.
As Peters correctly pointed out, before Al-Qaeda came along it was Qadafi who was responsible for the greatest number of American deaths due to terrorism.
But I'd still like our NATO allies to pony up and not assume they can just free-ride on this. Don't get me wrong; I love my NATO allies, I just want them to cowboy up on this.
Post a Comment