Libya: Not so much a question of “if” as of “when”
by Prairie Weather
True: “Qaddafi poses no threat to America.” Well, except for an airliner full of people brought down by Qaddafi or the recent killings of Americans in Berlin. Even leaving aside those incidents, D.B. Grady, writing in The Atlantic, is right about what Obama has managed to do.
Here is the rare alignment of a terrible, tyrannical head of state, an oppressed people pressing for change, and formal censure not only from the West, but also the Arab League. However tarnished, the U.S. is the last superpower, and in times of crisis, the world still looks to it. The choice was to bear witness to an atrocity, or to end it. President Obama chose the latter.
And this needs to be reiterated:
The president avoided every appearance of hostility, imperialism, or American interest in the region. His public statements sidestepped democracy, calling only for “reform” and “restraint.”
But now it’s war. And it could have been done more efficiently — no question about that — if we’d gone in earlier in a “surgical strike” and just taken out Qaddafi. Instead we did the right thing and waited to work with our allies and the Arab League within the commonly accepted structure provided by the UN. And something no critic is mentioning: we are actively giving encouragement — and time — to others in the “Arab Spring.” In Bahrain and Yemen, the message is getting through. America and Europe are no longer supportive of corrupt, tyrannical leaders.
Why Libya? Because the struggling revolutions elsewhere need time, and Libya buys that time. The winds of change that swept through Tunisia and Egypt have slowed, and need invigoration. The departure of Moammar Qaddafi and the dawn of a new Libya will provide it. President Obama has taken a long view of the Arab Spring. Change will require patience, and patience is now policy.
This is cross-posted from the blog Prairie Weather.