The Kerfuffle in Libya

The U.S. attacks on Libya have all the factions twisted around. I’ve heard the same arguments and justifications and condemnations for both ends of my radio dial. And across the intertracks.

I applaud those lefties who hold some integrity to the anti-war stance. We’re halfway through Bush’s third term. But it was a lefty who teased out the line from Obama’s speech about Libyan agents having killed Americans (a quarter-century ago) as evidence that Obama is defending U.S. interests and American lives.

Many righties and libertarian types are having difficulty with the newly-minted Obama doctrine, which seems to be call for U.S. military action when human rights are grossly violated. So, why aren’t we bombing Iran, Saudia Arabia, and Myanmar (or Barney Frank’s apartment)?

Some righties are accepting of Obama walking his non-commital tightrope. It is certainly proper, they say, to take action against Gaddafi. The other barbarians can wait their turn for justice, if necessary.

On the whole, it sounds much like the effect campaign Obama had mastered. He says little and allows everyone to project what they want in his words and inactions.

On the aiding and arming of the “rebels”, the best point I have seen holds that Gaddafi will not be bled out. He’s rich and has allies. If he is not quickly “regime changed” by external forces, our aiding the “rebels” will promote an enduring guerilla/terrorist war in Libya.

Like pregnancy, you can’t be half at war. If somebody—the U.S., NATO, ninjas displaced by the tsunami—must define and seek victory. Nobodies interests are served by picking at scabs for another twenty years in another part of the globe.