The Beltway's Libya Flip-Out
I just can’t seem to help myself. I may be stubborn, stupid, or congenitally contrarian--or some combination of all three. I find myself having been frustrated by the Obama Administration’s handling of the crisis in Libya, but even more upset with its critics--both right and left.
My view for some time was that the U.S., preferably in concert with our allies, would intervene in the growing Libyan crisis. I wish that we had acted sooner. My rationale for this position is uncomplicated: Qaddafi is much worse than a very bad guy. Over the years he has been responsible directly for the deaths of a great many Americans--civilian and uniformed. He committed mass murder over Lockerbie, Scotland. He has been a constant source of violence and instability in the Middle East.
When people in his country began to revolt against Qaddafi, we gave them verbal encouragement but apparently not much else. Only when it became clear that a mass slaughter of rebels and sympathetic civilians was imminent did we act with force--impressive force at that. I applaud and support what the President has done, even if it came a week or ten days later than I wished.
But now we are hearing a cacophony of complaints from Capitol Hill and among TV’s talking heads. There wasn’t enough consultation (is there ever?), the military operations underway are either too forceful or too limited, Obama has ceded too much authority to our allies or he has acted too unilaterally. The bitching and moaning is constant, shrill and ubiquitous; I also think it’s misdirected, ill-timed and decidedly unhelpful.
And in a town and time where every claim and charge, no matter how dumb or outrageous, is covered and repeated on cable TV as if it had merit, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is able to claim some level of dubious distinction by calling for the impeachment of the President. Good grief!
Republican kvetching is just as irksome--some of it is just plain whiney and some is terribly hypocritical. Let’s call the roll: Lebanon, Grenada, Somalia (we went in under Bush 41 and came out under Clinton), Panama, Iraq (twice), Afghanistan… Have I missed any? And while I argued against or was uncomfortable with a couple of those, I and other Democrats argued in support of most--often putting us at serious odds with others in our party (the center of gravity within which is, unfortunately, instinctively and decidedly against the use of force).
Rather than getting all in a lather right now, why don’t critics refocus their anger and instead concentrate their mental energies on the hope that Qaddafi’s drive to squelch the rebellion and execute its participants is halted and reversed. Let’s all hope, too, that the intervention results in as few American, Allied and civilian casualties as possible. And whether or not it’s an official part of the mission, I invite others to join me in hoping that Muammar Qaddafi ends up at the wrong place at the wrong time, and that the world is thereby spared any more pain due to his evil calculations and hostile behavior. As for Dennis Kucinich, I just want him to sit down and be quiet.
Tweet