|
Beyond the immediate concern of getting American citizens out of Libya, here is one of the ultimate questions I believe we have to ask ourselves: how far can a mentally unstable dictator go in killing the people of his own nation while the world watches? This is a question which relates to all situations of genocide or anything approaching it. What are the limits? Five thousand? Ten thousand? Half a million? If you don’t set the number fairly low, how do you justify acting when the number goes very high?
It is around questions like this that the desire for a United Nations was born, but sadly that has not worked very effectively. The world still depends on the bold to come forward and take action when most others hesitate. Europe looks to America to take the lead because they would rather not bear the cost, in lives and money and possible criticism, of doing it themselves. But what level of military response would be appropriate?
At this moment, Qaddafi stands as the least admired head of state in the world. He has not reached the low status of Idi Amin, but he's headed in that direction. Only Daniel Ortega dares call him and express sympathy. (Memo to Ortega: are you trying to make the American right look good?) From all indications, Qaddafi has hired a slaughter corps from across Africa to murder indiscriminately.
This is one of the few times when a coup not only would be appropriate, but is needed, direly. There is no workable international apparatus to convict Qaddafi of his crimes and to send in a force to get him and bring him out, alive or otherwise. Nations have resisted this kind of thing because they fear the power could be turned on them next and that no government in the world would then be safe from criminal charges against its leaders. These fears are not unfounded, but they are overblown. Further, one reason that nations tolerate abuses is they have plans for abuses of their own.
Here is what is sad about this situation: a nation has risen up against a tyrant and we, who are spending something like a trillion dollars for wars and their aftermath in Afghanistan and Iraq in the name of freedom and democracy, believe we can do little to help the people of Libya, who are paying with their blood and their lives to rid themselves of an abundantly unbalanced murderer. We can make clear that we support those in the military who oppose Qaddafi and that we will be available to assist them, with military power, once he is gone. The idea that we, through the UN, could help restore peace should have a strong appeal. We should, also, search for every option to do more to bring about his end.
We, the United States, have an unfortunate run of picking all the wrong wars. We act when we should stay put and stay home when we should be active. The catalog of our mistakes and misdeeds is long. I think a major part of what is behind this is that we search for the easy war, the great win, the triumphant moment that will rock the world with our power and decisiveness. We are always seeking to show, to demonstrate, rather than actually do. Vietnam was one extended attempt to show that we would “pay any price, bear any sacrifice” and we wound up doing just that, for all the wrong reasons and for no gain.
Gulf War I, the H.W. Bush war, succeeded in running Saddam back to Baghdad with his scuds between his legs, but what else did it accomplish or prove? Within a few short years, terrorists had risen from the middle east energized by the notion that America could not take losses on battlefields and would retreat quickly when confronted. This miscalculation on the part of the terrorists leg directly to 9-11, 2001. There is nothing that can ever be proved to the world about America’s “resolve” that doesn’t have to be proved over and over within months or a few years of the last proof.
We would have no idea of showing something to the world by the U.S. taking an active, military and covert role in Libya. What we might do, however, is earn some small gratitude and develop a role in shaping the post revolutionary state of Libya and the middle east. But that is far secondary to the basic humanitarian goal of helping a people who are now at the mercy of a madman. How long can this go on without a strong response?
Doug Terry, 2.4.11
|
|
