I am amazed at the flip-flopping and inconsistencies that are going on when it comes to supporting or opposing the coalition’s enforcement of the UN-established no-fly zone in Libya.
There are those who supported the Iraq war and support the coalition’s present action in Libya. While I think they were wrong on Iraq, they are at least consistent.
There are those who opposed the Iraq war and who oppose our involvement in Libya. While I think they are wrong on Libya, they are also at least consistent—these are probably the individuals who are most sincere and unwavering in their principles.
There are those who opposed the Iraq war and who support the intervention in Libya. In my opinion they are right on both counts. No wonder I share those convictions.
By “those” I am not referring to those “regular Americans” who oppose both military actions based on principles, religion, morality or even economic or other philosophical reasons and beliefs. Nor am I including those who have genuinely experienced an epiphany about no-fly zones, invasions and occupations since the Iraq war and have genuinely renounced all that bad stuff.
I am talking about those politicians and pundits—neoconservatives—who were hell-bent on having their Iraq adventure but are now wringing their hands and flapping their gums about Libya.
It is this latter category I want to rant about expand upon, because it’s here where I believe partisanship, politics, ulterior motives and naked political hypocrisy, expediency and opportunism may be abundantly present.
But, first, let’s clear something up.
We should compare apples to apples and not figs to dates.
If there are any objective comparisons to be made between “Iraq” and “Libya” they should be comparisons between the Iraq “No-Fly Zones” that were established over Iraq by the U.S., Britain and France after the first Gulf War in 1991 and 1992 and the No-Fly Zone established over Libya last week by United Nations Resolution 1973.
To those who supported the 1991-2003 Iraqi no-fly zones and now have second thoughts about the 2011 Libya no-fly zone, I just would like to point out the following:
The original intent of Iraqi no-fly zones was to protect (rebellious) Iraqi minorities from attacks by the despot Saddam Hussein. The purpose of the Libyan no-fly zone is to protect freedom-seeking Libyans from attacks by the despot Muammar Qadhafi.
While the Iraqi no-fly zones had no explicit UN authorization (the enforcing powers cited United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 as authorization), UN Resolution 1973 explicitly authorized establishment and enforcement of a Libyan no-fly zone.
U.S. enforcement of the Iraqi no-fly zones lasted approximately 12 years at an average cost of $1.3 billion per year, averaged between 1996 and 2001. The independent, nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) has estimated that enforcing a “full” no-fly zone over all of Libya could cost between $100 and $300 million per week, with an initial, one-time, up-front cost of between $400 and $800 million for degrading/destroying the Libyan air defenses. (Here’s where the much-talked-about Tomahawk cruise missiles “at $1 million a pop” come into play.)
Remember, the no-fly zones over Iraq were enforced over a period of 12 years. The Libyan action has yet to reach its 12th day.
To those who still insist on comparing George Bush’s invasion and six-year long occupation of Iraq with the current—so far five-day long—United Nations action in Libya, I first refer them to “the top ten ways that Libya 2011 is not Iraq 2003,” and will just ask, “Do you still want to compare figs to dates?”
If the answer is yes, let’s start with cost.
We have already discussed the potential costs of enforcing a full, intensive no-fly zone over all of Libya.
The direct cost of the Iraq war, still being added to and calculated, stood at more than $700 billion as of February 2010, or at about $100 billion per year.
(The cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars stood at nearly $1.2 trillion at the beginning of 2011. Some sources claim the two wars are costing the American people approximately $300,000 per minute!)
After assuring and agreeing with the President in a letter Wednesday that “The United States has long stood with those who seek freedom from oppression through self-government and an underlying structure of basic human rights,” House Speaker John Boehner criticized the president for not having clear scope, objectives and purpose. He also asked for cost estimates and sources of funding and then asked:
Your Administration has repeatedly said our engagement in this military action will be a matter of “days, not weeks.” After four days of U.S. military action, how soon do you expect to hand control to these other nations? After the transition to coalition forces is completed, how long will American military forces remain engaged in this action? If Qadhafi remains in power, how long will a no-fly zone will be enforced?
By gosh, where was this man and where were these questions after America had spent four years—not four days—fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq at a cost of approximately $100 billion a year, not to mention having already lost 4,000 of our finest. Where was he when our allies were deserting us in droves and when there were none to whom we could “hand control” over?
Where were he and other neocons to ask questions of the Bush administration as to the endgame, clear goals, objectives, etc. during the years 2003 through 2008?
By golly, this man is asking about a Libyan “exit strategy” after four or five days, when the Bush administration couldn’t find the Iraqi exit door for more than five years and, then, when it took a new administration to finally find and open that door a crack?
Finally, the Speaker criticizes the President for lacking clarity over the objectives and over ”what our national security interests are, and how it fits into our overarching policy for the Middle East.”
This, after his own administration totally misled the nation as to what Iraq’s threat was to “our national security interests,” thus, consequently, at best compromising any objectives, goals or endgame, at worst totally tainting them.
And then there’s Newt Gingrich …
Yes, this president has been slow, even reluctant to go to war and he may be rightly criticized for that. However, no lies have been told, no WMD/imminent threat specters have been raised, no fear mongering has taken place, no American lives have been lost yet. And, while no “mission accomplished” has been proclaimed yet, hopefully and God-willing that is only days or weeks from now.
And how is the four or five day no-fly zone enforcement going so far?
Please read here.
