Doing the Right Thing

I notice that there is a heck of a lot more grousing about American intervention in Libya than there ever was in Afghanistan or Iraq. Funny.

I could buy the intervention in Afghanistan since that government sheltered Al Qaeda that attacked the US. But that should have been a quick war. One that deposed the Taliban and chased Al Qaeda out of the country (and capturing Osama Bin Laden). But it wasn't. Instead the Boy Wonder President got busy with invading Iraq and let Afghanistan fall apart. Even before he got deep into Iraq he managed to use corrupt means -- bribes -- to try to catch Bin Laden rather than US troops, so he never got Bin Laden.

Iraq was a complete mess. I won't dwell on it.

Libya is a chance to redeem US foreign policy by assisting people in tossing out a mad dictator. Apparently Hilary Clinton bought this, but she had to work had to get Obama to come around. But I notice a heck of a lot of media people are grousing about "one war too many".

Here is Barry Ritholtz of The Big Picture blog:

Gaddafi is a lying psychopath who is slaughtering his own people.

So is the imposition of a no-fly zone a good thing?

Perhaps. The Arab League called for it. And even some Libyan rebels pleaded for imposition of a no-fly zone.

But if someone is going to stop Gaddafi, it should be Arab League nations – like Saudi Arabia, which is armed to the teeth.

America should not be involved, because:

• Most Americans are strongly against U.S. intervention in Libya

• America was already involved in 2+ wars costing the U.S. many trillions of dollars (Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says that the Iraq war alone will cost $3-5 trillion dollars.) Indeed, America’s engagement in multiple wars is bankrupting our country – despite the claims by the military Keynesians

• We are creating more terrorists than we’re stopping by bombing and invading Arab countries

• And both conservatives like Ron Paul and liberals like Dennis Kucinich have pointed out that American intervention is unlawful without a Congressional resolution of war … which no one bothered to ask for.

So I don’t care whether or not someone imposes a no-fly zone or takes out Gaddafi … but the U.S. shouldn’t be the one to do it, even as part of a coalition with France and Britain.

Indeed, Gaddafi has accused the efforts by the three former colonial powers – U.S., France and Britain – as being “neo-colonial” aggression and a “crusade“.

If Arabic countries were the ones to intervene, Arabs wouldn’t be able to make those charges.

And if Arab countries are not willing to intervene themselves, that speaks volumes as to their true priorities … especially since Saudi Arabia just sent 1,000 troops to Bahrain to help the tyrants in that country brutally put down a pro-democracy protest.

I agree that the US should be in the background, and it is. I agree that it is tragic that the Arabs claim to despise Gaddafi but are not stepping forward to help depose him. And Ritholtz is right to point out the cynical position of the Saudis.

But I bought the Bush argument for "democracy" in the Middle East. I never bought that you could impose it. But I sure buy the idea that you can assist it by stepping up when aid is needed to establish tentative steps toward democracy. I'm amazed at how cynical Americans are and unwilling to support democracy. They have no problem with wars of agression and using arms to prop up dictators, but when it comes to supporting a popular revolt, most Americans suddenly find they have "moral scruples". Give me a break!