In his address to the nation Monday, all the reasons for going into Libya existed in Iraq when Bush Sr took us to war there. In fact, Iraq was worse. Saddam had invaded another country, treating them brutally in the process, was brutalizing his own citizens worse than Kadhafi has been his own, had used WMD on his own people, had been ignoring UN resolutions to a greater degree, and he was a very destabilizing force in the middle east. We established a no-fly zone without taking him out so we could respond quickly and effectively to any perceived military action in the future.
By the way, do you remember that Saddam launched medium range ballistic ("SCUD") missiles at Israel?
And, everyone agrees Saddam had developed big stockpiles of WMD and, indeed, had been trying to develop nuclear weapons. Documents from Iraq's government proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt. He ditched most of his WMD programs at some point, probably when it became clear to even him that we were serious about attacking him again if he kept it up. [Question: what do you think Saddam would have done with his WMD if he thought our policy was like Obama's ... political correctness, letting others lead and generally trying along with other countries, hoping they'll like us enough to behave? Please attempt serious consideration what Saddam would most likely have done.]
Bush Sr fought a 'limited war' in Iraq just like Obama wants to do in Libya. What did it get us, the Iraqis and other countries in the region? Brutal mayhem in Iraq against his own citizens and cooperation with other countries that was pure pretense. When Bush 43 took us to war there, the conditions were at least as bad for Iraqis and world stability as it was in Libya when Obama took us to war there 1 1/2 weeks ago.
All the conditions that Obama said existed in Libya existed in Iraq under Bush Jr to at least the same degree. So, it seems to me that Obama was saying Monday that it WAS a good thing Bush Jr took out Saddam and made him answer for his crimes against humanity. Saddam's rule was just as dispicable and evil as Kadhafi's. The only significant difference is that Obama isn't committed to do whatever's necessary to capture Kadhafi and make him answer for his crimes. In that respect Obama's war is more like Bush Sr's. It's very likely Kadhafi will make us regret not taking swift action to capture him or take him out if that's our only choice.
This half-hearted politically correct attitude we have toward despots is sad to see in US foreign policy. Despots will ALWAYS make you pay for dithering and playing politically correct games. Sure, it's difficult and costly to do the right thing but history(!) proves not doing the right thing is worse. Despotic dictators always make you regret not delivering swift and certain justice to them. Obama is VERY fortunate that Kadhafi doesn't have a very capable military. If Kadhafi's military were anywhere nearly as capable as Saddam's, Obama's entry into this war would have been too late to prevent a catastrophe.
Why hasn't Obama learned from history that when a despot is doing what Saddam and Kadhafi were doing, they ignore words from us or the UN? Why wait until it's nearly too late? Despots are completely predictable in that respect. God help us if we become predictably ignorant of history's lessons as Obama's administration seems be.
So, what do YOU want the message to be to other dictators in the region and around the world? We have no spine? We don't care whether there's an effective force that will lead action against despots? Is that a message that will serve us well? I think not. History has pretty much proven that countries which try that fail.
Recall all our previous enemies. Hitler's Germany. Imperialist Japan. And all others. In EVERY case, their leaders struck diplomatic deals with other countries that the other countries foolishly believed. Despots WILL negotiate and even make treaties with others while, behind the scenes, making plans to make war with them when it's more convenient for them. Hitler did it with England and Russia via treaties and non-aggression agreements. Japan did it with us before attacking Hawaii. When we try to make peace with despots and try to stay out of wars and conflicts in the process, the wars INEVITABLY(!) come to us. What? History isn't relevant? Or maybe they just don't teach real history at Harvard?
While our military actions haven't always worked out very well, lacking the will to take action would have made this world much less safe and secure today. History proves that delaying action and believing despot's words only benefits the despots. Despots WILL do what despots have always done, period.
No comments:
Post a Comment