http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0411/hanson040711.php3?printer_friendly

 

April 7, 2011 

Did We Give Up on Libya? 

By Victor Davis Hanson 

President Obama has announced that America would stop attacking Col. Muammar
Gadhafi's forces in Libya. He instead hopes that others can force out
Gadhafi -- or that the dictator will leave through economic and diplomatic
pressure.

It will apparently be up to NATO to finish the war -- without direct
American combat participation. The relieved Obama administration had never
quite explained what the mission was in the first place -- or for whom and
for what we were fighting. Was the bombing to stop the killing, to help the
rebels, to remove Gadhafi, or to aid the British and French, who both have
considerable oil interests in Libya?

Were we enforcing just a no-fly zone, establishing a sort of no-fly zone
with occasional attacks on ground targets, or secretly sending in American
operatives on the ground to work with rebels? Did the Obama administration
go well beyond the Arab League and United Nations resolutions by trying to
target Gadhafi for a while and ensure that the rebels won? If so, did anyone
care? Was the administration ever going to ask for congressional approval --
at a time when we are running a $1.6 trillion annual budget deficit and have
about 150,000 troops committed in Afghanistan and Iraq? Was Libya a greater
threat to our national security than Syria or Iran, or a greater
humanitarian crisis than the Congo or Ivory Coast? Are our new allies, the
rebels, Westernized reformers, Islamists, or both -- or neither?

The abrupt abandonment of hostilities after about two weeks has set an
American military precedent. True, the United States once lost a big war in
Vietnam. It also decided not to finish a war with Islamic terrorists in 1983
after Hezbollah operatives blew up 241 U.S. military personnel in their
Beirut barracks. In 1993, a few months after the "Black Hawk Down" mess in
Mogadishu, President Clinton quietly withdrew American troops from Somalia.

In the past, the United States has also agreed to conditions short of full
victory, as with the 1953 armistice with the North Koreans that has left the
Korean peninsula divided to this day. Bill Clinton also ordered missile
attacks in retaliation for terrorist attacks on Americans -- both in
Afghanistan and Sudan -- without much follow-up. Yet in no prior military
engagement against a nation-state has the United States simply announced
that it was arbitrarily and unilaterally going to stop fighting after an
initial two weeks of combat operations.

I would not count on the ready departure of Gadhafi or his family.

In 1977, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat struck back at Libyan provocations
and almost invaded the country. Egypt's massive army could have smashed the
Libyan military and easily removed Gadhafi, but Egypt was talked out of the
war at the last minute by concerned Arab nations.

In 1986, Ronald Reagan ordered a strike against Tripoli aimed at Gadhafi
himself -- who may have been warned ahead of time of the impending attack
and escaped. Reagan gave up on further missions against Gadhafi.

Gadhafi fought and lost a decade-long war against Chad from 1978 to 1987.
Yet despite thousands of dead and wounded Libyans, the defeat did not
endanger Gadhafi's hold on power.

During his 42-year reign, Gadhafi has sent troops to help out the monstrous
Ugandan dictator Idi Amin, blown up passenger jets, supported Slobodan
Milosevic in the Balkan wars, ordered assassinations abroad, masterminded
terrorist plots -- and always survived by using his vast petroleum fortunes
to buy reprieves.

Unlike pro-Western strongmen in Tunisia and Egypt who simply left when
protests mounted, Gadhafi is perfectly willing to kill thousands of his own
people to retain power. After all, he is a totalitarian outlaw with nowhere
to go. Usually, such monsters do not abdicate unless they are yanked out by
American ground troops -- as in Grenada, Iraq and Panama -- or bombed
relentlessly for weeks on end, as in the case of the NATO campaign against
Milosevic.

Sanctions and pariah status usually do not matter much to brutal dictators
like Gadhafi -- as the longevity of Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, North Korea's
Kim Jong-Il or Cuba's Fidel Castro attests.

In our defense, we can say that Gadhafi's removal was properly a European
task. We can even agree that President Obama acted precipitously, without a
clear-cut mission, strategy or desired outcome -- and without majority
support of either Congress or the American people.

Yes, we can say all that. But if Gadhafi or his family survives in power
after the United States simply got tired and quit, we will also be able to
say that this sort of defeat is something quite new in American history.

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, 
[email protected].
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[email protected]

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: [email protected]
  Subscribe:    [email protected]
  Unsubscribe:  [email protected]


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to